Delhi Court August 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gordon Woodroffe and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC53
1. In the two appeals capitoned above, the surviving issue is common; namely, as to whether items imported as "springs" by the appellants merit classification as parts of machinery under Tariff Item 84.29 of CTA or as articles of General Use depending upon their composition vis-a-vis the metal and correspondingly under T.I. 73.33/40. The authorities below have gone by the definition given in Section Note 2(b) to Section XV of the CTA, and 'springs' have been treated as "parts of general use", irrespective of their use in machinery or mechanical equipment It was, therefore, held that all steel springs were correctly classifiable under TI 73.33/40 of the CTA.2. Today, Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan appearing for the appellants in both the appeals has argued that Chapter 73 falls under Section XV, and that a reference to the Section notes reveals that note 1 of this Section which contains exclusion clauses; mentions, inter alia, vide clause (f) that 'articles falling within Section XVI (machine...
New Standard Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC49
1. In this appeal, which was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government, the appellants have prayed that a consignment of rough machined ram forgings for manufacture of pneumatic power hammers imported by them may be re-assessed @ 40% ad valorem under heading 84.45/48 as against the original assessment under heading 73.04/06(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 @ 60% ad valorem plus 15% ad valorem plus countervailing duty at Rs. 165/- per M/Ton under item 26 AA of CET. They have stated that the forgings were hardened at 900C/600C and quenched and tempered. These were subjected to rigorous test for chemical compositions, ultrasonic test for rough machining, izod impact test (or charpy test) and for tensile strength. The forgings were made from ingots large enough to have a minimum reduction of 3 to 1 on the ram head. They have been forged into shape and rough machined to very close tolerances and as such acquired the specific shape and characteristics of the...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Banco Aluminium and Gujarat
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC280Tri(Delhi)
1. These are four Applications for condonation of delay in as many appeals filed before us against one consolidated order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) by which he disposed of four appeals before him.2. Originally, one single appeal in E/1044/86-A was filed along with an application for condonation of delay in filing it On the Registry taking exception to one consolidated appeal, three Supplementary Appeals have been filed on 12th May, 1986 along with the three other applications for condonation of delay.3. The dates relevant for a consideration of the Application for condonation of delay in the original appeal itself (Appeal No.E/1044/86- A) as furnished in the Application are as follows: (a) 14-10-85 - The order of the Collector (Appeals) was attested and put in a course of transmission to the appellant amongst others; (b) 18-10-85 - The aforesaid order was received in the office of the Applicant.It is on 31-3-1986 that the instant appeal was received in the Registry ...
Essa Brothers Vs. Hotel Maurya Palace Seraton and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR146(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT441; 1987RLR25
Dalip K. Kapur, C.J. (1) This is an appeal directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, passed on an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. staying suit No. 424/83. That suit is between M/s. Easa Brothers as the plaintiff and M/s. Hotel Maurya Sheraton & Others two others as defendants. (2) The suit was for recovery of possession of a shop situated in the Maurya Place Sheraton and for the recovery of Rs. 6 lakhs (rupees six lakhs only) as damages for illegal possession. The hotel has a number of shops in it and one of those shops was occupied by the Plaintiff for business purposes. The monthly rent was Rs. 15.000.00 (rupees fifteen thousand only). The document was described as a license Deed. A sum of Rs. 1,80.000.00 (rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) was given as deposit which continues to remain with the Hotel. (3) The case of the Plaintiffs was that on 16.12.82 a letter was received from Shri Ravi Suri. Manager of the Hotel, accusing the Plainti...
Ram Lal Vs. Harikishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi73; 30(1986)DLT426; 1986RLR572
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th October. 1985 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order of eviction under Section 14(l)(c) of the Act and giving benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act to the appellant. (2) Briefly the facts are that the respondent Hari Kishan had filed a petition for eviction of the appellant Ram Lal from premises No. 8A/60, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31 alleging that the appellant was in arrears of rent @Rs. 22 per month from 1-3-197R and that he neither paid nor tendered the rents within two months from the date of the service of the notice of demand dated 14th November, 1980. He also alleged that the promises were let for residential purposes and the same were required by him for occupation as a residence for members of his family. that he was the owner of the premises, that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodat...
Union of India Vs. Ajit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi151; 1987(12)DRJ104
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This judgment will also dispose of R.F.As. Nos. 379, 423, 350, 351 and 352 of 1971 as all these appeals arise out of a consolidated judgment dated 27/3/1971 whereby the learned Additional District Judge held that lessee was entitled to 75% of the compensation and the Lesser was entitled to 25%. It was further held that the lessee will be entitled to the entire compensation awarded in respect of shifting of stone crusher and cost of kotha. However, in these appeals, there is no challenge to the grant of compensation in respect of stone crusher or kotha. The arguments were confined to the apportionment of compensation for the land only. The Union of India has filed three appeals being R.F. As. Nos. 378, 379 and 423 of 1971 while the lessee Ajit Singh has filed the other appeals being R.F. A. Nos. 350, 351 and 352 of 1971. Both sides have claimed that they are entitled to the entire compensation. (2) The land which is the subject matter of three awards being awards Nos...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes332; 30(1986)DLT355
D.K. Kapur, C.J.(1) This is a habeas corpus petition relating to the detention of Sunil Kumar. The detention is based on the disclosure made by Shri Chakravarthy Vadrewo after he was detained at Palam Airport on 20th November, 1984. In his various disclosure statements he has also stated that Sunil Kumar was his mentor and guide and had actually been the guiding factor in the smuggling operations done by him. Among other things it was stated that Sunil used to supply money and fake passports on which Chakravarthy used to travel abroad to import contraband material. Regarding the trip which ended in the apprehension at the airport, it was claimed that it was Sunil who had got those button cells at Bangkok and Sunil had travelled back one day earlier from Bangkok. Thus, Chakravarthy had tried to place the blame on Sunil. There was other material appearing from the statements of certain other persons to whom Chakravarthy used to sell smuggled goods. They also claimed that Sunil used to se...
Kasim Ali Vs. M.L. Wadhawan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes178; 30(1986)DLT331
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This criminal writ has been filed by petitioner Kasim Ali father-in-law of detenu Abdul Aziz @ Chotu s/o Rahmatulla r/o 42, Khoza Colony, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad, presently detained in Central Prison, Chanchalgurah, Hyderabad (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'detenu') and is directed against the order of detention dated 31-12-1985 passed by Shri M L. Wadbawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India in regard to the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974 (as amended). Shri M.L. Wadhawan is an officer of the Central Government and is specially empowered under Section 3(1) of Cofeposa Act for this purpose. The Advisory Board constituted under the Cofeposa Act gave its opinion on 19-3-1986 in favor of the detention to the detenu. (2) The contention raised by ...
Chakravarthy Vadrevo Vs. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes624; 30(1986)DLT478
D.K. Kapar, C.J.(1) The two habeas corpus petitions, Cri. Writ 80/86 i.e. the present petition and Cri. Writ 50/86. arise out of the same incident and they are independent to some extent. The petitioner in this case Shri Chakravarthy Vadrevo was detained by an order dated 12-12-1985 issued under section 3(1) read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The grounds of detention in both the cases are practically identical. (2) From the grounds it would appear that the: petitioner traveling under the name of Padma Ram was apprehended on 20th November. 1984 at Palam Airport. He had come on a flight from Bangkok and bad cleared some goods worth Rs. 4250.00 at the customs but after clear (3) He also mentioned the name of one Virender who, he had said, was the financer who used to come with Sunil for payment of customs duty for the goods brought by him. He also mentioned an incident involving release of a colour Tv...
Ramji Lal Kundan Lal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC181Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an application under S.82-B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter, the Act), requiring the Tribunal to state a case to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in regard to two questions (set forth hereinafter) said to be questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's Order dated 4-6-1985 dismissing an appeal filed by the applicant against an Order-in-Original No. 6/83 dated 19-5-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The question of law sought to be referred by the instant application are as follows : (i) Whether the order for confiscation of gold in terms of Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, was illegal for failure to afford an opportunity to the claimants to it to prove their ownership thereof as well as the transgression of the provisions of the Act without their knowledge or connivance, in terms of he proviso to the said Section? (ii) Whether the notice contemplated in Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, has, necessar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »