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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Jolly Exports (P) Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT612TriDel
1. The review show cause notice issued by the Governement under Section 131 of the Customs Act, on transfer to the Tribunal, is being treated as an appeal.2. The respondents imported three crates surface plates in stainless steel valued at Rs. 1,81,647/- from Sweden under Bill of Entry No.1016/121-21.12.1978. The goods were surface plates in stainless steel of size 3mm x 5070 mm x 1310 mm and were described in the invoice as Grade Avesta 832 H ground one side with emery 220, complete with 18 lugs per plate. The Department assessed the goods to duty under heading 73.15(2) CTA 75 @ 220% plus CVD. The importers disputed the classification and submitted that the goods were classifiable under heading 84.59(1). In his order of assessment, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay held that the surface plates could not be said to be components of hot press necessary for its operation, but could not only be said to be the parts of a system for the manufacture of the hard board. He referred t...
Jagjit Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi550
ORDER1. In the case State v. Kartar Singh Narang etc. (popularly known as Bomb Blast case of Delhi) Jagjit Singh s/o Bharat Singh r/o 52/64, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was granted pardon and made approver on recording his statement under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) by a Magistrate during investigation of the case. Subsequently, he was examined as a witness during committal proceedings before a Metropolitan Magistrate wherein he resoled completely from his previous statement recorded under S. 164 Cr.P.C. and he also made it clear before the committing Magistrate that he did not want to become an approver and thus sought to cast away the pardon granted to him as approver and desired to be tried for the offence in respect of which he had been granted the pardon. The case was committed to the court of session and on the day when the accused persons appeared the petitioner was also produced but the petitioner made an application that since he had...
Ram Syal and Sons Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR126(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT393
H.C. Goel, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that the matters in dispute as stated in the petition be referred to arbitration of the arbitrator to be appointed by the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India, respondent in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement as arrived at between the parties. Mr. Narsimhan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Clause 10 of the terms and conditions governing the agreement the contractor is not entitled to any compensation or damages on account of any delay in supply or non-supply thereof of all or any such material or store. It Is submitted that in view of this term of the agreement the claim of the petitioner for damages on account of non supply or short supply of cement by the respondent to the petitioner for the execution of the work is not liable to be referred to arbitration. I do not agree with this submission. The portion of Clause 10 of the terms and conditi...
Rajendra Singh Sethia Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ275
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This order shall dispose of the bail application dated 14-5-1986 of Rajendra Singh Sethia. His previous bail application wa dismissed by this Court about a year back on 17 7,1985. His earlier bail applications were dismissed by the magistrate and also by the Additional Sessions Judge. The last order dismissing his prayer for bail was passed on 5.51.986 by Shri Subhash Wason, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Some new facts and contentions are raised in the present petition for the grant of bail.(2) In order to dispose of the bail application it would be necessary to set out in some details the allegations of the Gbi against the petitioner which led to his arrest and the filing of the charge-sheet against him. The petitioner Rajendra Singh Sethia, an Indian National based at U.K., is the Managing Director of the Group of Esal (Commodities) Ltd., London Some time during 1982-84 be entered into a criminal conspiracy with his own employees as well as with certai...
Chandranimehta Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi294; 1986LabIC1497
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The petitioner in this writ petition asserts that she is a displaced person. She says that she was employed as a Headmistress in Nagar Palika Primary School No. 1, Keeling Lane, New Delhi, under the New Delhi Municipal Committee. The said school is recognised and aided by the Delhi Administration. (2) The petitioner states that she was compulsorily and prematurely retired at the age of 56 years without any reason by an order dated 14th May, 1976. The order annexed to the petition is Annexure 1. This order was passed 'in exercise of the powers conferred by clause 'J' of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules as adopted by the Committee'. (3) Later on in modification of this order another resolution was passed on 15-5-1978 by the respondent Committee which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure IX. Annexure Ix reads as under :- 'RESOLVED that in modification of Resolution No. 26 dated 30-4-1976, Smt. Chand Rani Mehta. Headmistress, be retired from service w.e.f. 31...
Topan Lal Dhar Vs. Yash Pal Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT301; 1986RLR502
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order dt. 27th May 1935 of the Additional Rent Controller passing an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement under section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Learned counsel does not dispute that the respondent is the owner of the premises and the same were let for residential purposes. He however, submits thatthe respondent has sufficient accommodation in his possession and the present eviction petition is barred under the principles of rest judicata. (2) Briefly the facts are that the respondent Yash Pal Aggarwal has two brothers, namely, Lekh Ram and Bhagwat Swarup The family of the respondent his brother, and parents have a shop at Yusaf Sarai at the back of which there is residential portion. Earlier the respondent was living in the residential portion at Yusaf Sarai along with his parents. The shop at Yusaf Sarai is...
Ranjan Dwiwedi Vs. M.L. Pareekh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi546
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st January, 1986 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 16th January, 1986 of the Additional Rent Controller fixing the interim rent of the premises in dispute at the contractual rate of rent Rs. 1600 per month under Section 10 of the Act. The appellant Ranjan Dwiwedi is a tenant in a portion of House No. A-71, Hauz Khas, New Delhi under the respondent M. L. Pareekh. The appellant filed an application for fixation of standard rent. He has alleged that he was in possession of a portion of the house at Rs. 1600 per month; the house was constructed in 1964; the material used in the construction of the premises was of inferior quality, the cost of construction could not be more than Rs. 20,000; the plot was purchased by the respondent for Rs. 10,000; the rateable value of the entire house was Rs. 10,260; and the rent of simil...
Asha Rani and ors. Vs. Harbhajan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC551
S.B. Wad, J.1. In this F.A.O. the only question raised is whether the Tribunal was right in disallowing the appellants to lead additional evidence to establish the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident. In the claim petition it was stated that Vehicle No. DHL-4187 was involved in the accident causing the death of Virender Kumar Minocha. The respondents 1 and 2, namely, the Driver and the owner of the vehicle were proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, alone filed the written statement. There are mechanical denials and after reading the written statement the impression left is that the denials are made for avoiding responsibility. After stating that the number of vehicle was not stated in the F.I.R. and further stating that the vehicle was not involved in the accident it is asserted on behalf of the respondent-company that the Driver of the vehicle did not have driving license and as such the Insurance Company was not liable. The counsel for the appellan...
Nath Brothers Exim International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT536aTriDel
1. In this appeal, the question of correct classification of goods is involved. The goods, described as 'Automatic Cloth Cutting Machines namely Eastman Model 625 Ultronic Straight knife cloth cutting machines', were classified by the adjudicating authorities under T.I.85.05 of the CTA whereas the appellants claim it under T.I. 84.40(1) CTA.2. After notice of hearing, a written submission on behalf of the appellants has been received, addressed by Shri S.D. Nankani, Advocate, in which it is stated that the import in this case is exactly the same as in their earlier case which was the subject-matter of Appeals No.590/79-B2 and 591/79-B2, disposed of by Order Nos. 305 and 306/86-B2 dated 16-4-1986, and that this order of the Tribunal, which allowed appeals of the appellants, was in turn based on another judgment of the Tribunal in Appeal No. CD(SB)(T) 1385/81-B, 1984 (15) E.L.T. 430 (Tribunal) video Order No. B-1 175/83, dated 30-12-1983, filed by M/s.K. Mohan & Co. In the said earl...
V.K. Govil and G.K. Arora Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD460(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the AAC of Wealth-tax N-Range, dated 7-2-1985 relating to the assessment year 1972-73. The main ground taken up in appeal is that the proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') by the WTO were ab initio void and, therefore, the assessment framed on the basis of such a proceeding is a nullity.2. On this issue, we have heard both the sides and given careful consideration to the rival submissions as well as the relevant material in the paper book. We have also carefully considered the contents of the orders of the authorities below. We think it necessary to describe the background of the case before we decide the issue in appeal.3. Mr. Elwin Hotz was domiciled in England on 24-12-1955 and was temporarily residing at that time at Ruo Sao Francisco Funchal Madaire, when he made his last 'will' and testament, copy of which appears at pages 1 to 3 of the assessee's paper book. According to thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »