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.
iqbal Singh Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT438
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) By means of this revision petition brought by Iqbal Singh the impugned order dated 23rd June, 1986 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shaldara. Delhi, is sought to be set aside The contesting parties in this case are Iqbal Singh petitioner on the one hand and Hari Kishan Lal respondent No. 2 on the other, The short question posed before the learned S.D.M. and now before this court is as to which party of the two is in possession of the plots in dispute bearing numbers 50 to 53 which form part of abadi known is Vishwas Nagar, Delhi, The learned S.D.M. found the possession thereof in favor of respondent No. 2 Hari Kishan Lal and feeling aggrieved with the same the petitioner Iqbal Singh has come up in revision now.(2) The Khasra Girdawari Ext. Pw 5/DB for the year 1980-81 shows the following three khasra numbers in possession of Smt. Shakuntala Devi wife of Hari Kishan Lal: (i) 2685/1772/807/2, (ii) 2685/1772/807/3 and (iii) 2686/1772/807.(3) The Jam...
Orient Paper Mills Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC241Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture paper. On hearing both sides, we observe that they had two classes of buyers of their paper - (1) dealers and (2) industrial consumers. The dealers were given a discount of about 4% which was not given to industrial consumers. In addition, they used some quantity of wrapping paper captively to pack other paper therein.The point of dispute is whether the captively used paper should be assessed at the value applicable to dealers, a5 urged by the appellants, or at that applicable to industrial consumers, as held by the lower authorities.2. On careful consideration of the matter, we see force in the lower authorities' view that the appellants' captive use was akin to that of industrial consumers and hence the price charged to industrial consumers should apply. The appellants' argument that this price was in terms of the first proviso to Section 4(1)(a) which pre-supposed an actual sale and since there was no sale in the case of captive use, the price to deale...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fedders Lloyd Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC227
1. By a notice F.No. 198/10/23/ 78-CVX dated 15th November, 1978 issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Government of India called upon M/s. Fedders Lloyd Corporation to show cause why the order of the Appellate 'Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, No. 2427-2428 CE/77 dated 9-12-1977 should not be set aside and why the Government of India should not pass another order. The order of the Appellate Collector arose from Orders No. V(29A)2/65/74/10369 dated 11-7-1977 and No. V(29A)3/7/75/10632 dated 14-7-1977 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The Assistant Collector confirmed demands of duty served on the appellants on the basis that the 3 - ton air-conditioners manufactured and cleared by the appellants were package type (water cooled) air-conditioners. One order was in respect of Rs. 92,535/- and the other for an amount of Rs. 19,84,600/-. These orders were set aside by the Appellate Collector.2. The arguments before us...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC107
1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the product described s "Modified Short Oil Linseed Oil Alkyd" for internal consumption inside their own factory by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as assessee) is covered by the expression Alkyd resins as defined in the notification 122/71-CE dated 1.6.71 (as amended). The assessee's contention is that it is covered by the said expression -and is in fact a chemically modified Alkyd resin as included within the scope of the said expression in the notification. On the other hand, the Revenue insists that it is not a chemically modified resin. The lower appellate authorilty has upheld the contention of the assessee.2. As stated in the grounds of appeal on the authority of the Deputy Chief Chemist, Bombay, who tested the sample of the product drawn by the department, the product is "composed of synthetic resin based on poly basic acid, polyhydric alcohol, monobasic fatty acid, rosin and formaldehyde. The assessee has used about...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-vi Vs. Union Agencies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Del)16; [1987]166ITR529(Delhi)
Kapur, C.J.1. These are two petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before us for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79, concerning the same assessed, M/s. Union Agencies, New Delhi. The appeal relating to the year 1978-79 was decided on August 1, 1983, whereas the appeal for 1976-77 was decided on April 20, 1981. The reference applications were also separately decided, one on September 17, 1981, and the other on January 20, 1984. The two income-tax cases were directed to be listed together because of the admissions order in the second case.2. This judgment relates to the assessment year 1976-77 (ITC No. 176 of 1982). The question sought to be referred is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was no justification for disallowing the payment in cash amounting to Rs. 11,85,653 disallowed by the Income-tax Officer under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 3. It was urg...
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Panipat Foods Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT329
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 31st May 1986 whereby the application of the petitioner for leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 88,596.16 was dismissed. (2) Panipat Foods Limited (plaintiff company) instituted a suit under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code . against the petitioner State Trading Corporation (defendant Corporation) for recovery of Rs. 88,596,16. In this suit the defendant Corporation filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which was rejected by the trial court on 19th February 1986. Thereafter the plaintiff company applied for the service of summons of judgment and, thereforee, the defendant Corporation filed an application for grant of leave to defend the suit as provided under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code . The trial court by the impugned order dismissed this application for leave to defend. The petitio...
Mannu Bhandari Vs. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi13; ILR1986Delhi191
S.B. Wad, J.(1) How far law protects creative aesthetic expression of an artist? Is the intellectual property of an artist governed by the same norms as commercial property? Where does the freedom (of expression) of the author end, where does the Director begin? What is the scope and width of Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957? These are the questions F raised in Manna Bhandari's suit against M/s. Kala Vikas Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. and its producer and director. Kala Vikas has produced motion picture 'Samay Ki Dhara' eider assign- ment of filming rights of her novel 'Aap ka Bunty'. Her complaint is of the mutilation and distortion of the novel. She G' pleads for permanent injunction against its screening and ex- hibition. Although many .authors complain of such distortions, few have sought judicial protection. Hence, there is no precedent of any law court to guide the film industry.(2) The trial court has refused an ad-interim restraint order. H The appeal is against this order.(3) At ...
R.C. Madan Vs. Atma Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT386
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 11th July, 1979 of the Rent Control Tribunal requiring the appellant to deposit all arrears of rent for the period from 1st January, 1974 onwards at Rs. 17.50 per month within one month. The Tribunal further ordered that in case rent was deposited the eviction petition on ground of non-payment of rent would stand dismissed giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act, and in case of default eviction order would be deemed to have been passed. Similar order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 28th November, 1978. (2) The respondent-landlady filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on ground of non-payment of rent and various other grounds. All grounds other than non-payment were negatived by the Additional Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal. The appellant has challenged the ground of eviction as envisaged ...
K.M. Sebastian and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT410
D.K. Kapur, C.J (1) There are two appeals before the Court, both directed against the judgment of Wad J., in Civil Writ No. 268/81 delivered on 17th April, 1984. One appeal is on behalf of Shri K.M. Sebastian Shri A.Mitra, Shri D.R. Julka and Shri Y.P.Kapoor, and the other appeal is by the Union of India. The concerned respondent in each case is Shri R. Srinivasan, who was the petitioner in the aforementioned Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition can be shortly stated. He was a member of the Military Lands and Cantonments Service Class-I, later converted into the defense Land and Cantonments Service The promotion form this post was to the post of Deputy Director/Assistant Director in the Service. Formerly, this post was known as Assistant Director. In 1971, there were two vacancies to which Shri D.C. Choudhari and Shri Harpal Singh, were promoted. It appears that then there were three more vacancies, which resulted in the promotion of Shri Gamkhar, Sh...
Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: (1991)LC575Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 31.5.83 passed by the Collector (Appeals) New Delhi. The appellants were allowed incentive rebate on excess production of sugar of 1977-78 sugar season; but subsequently the department found that the appellants had paid less duty amounting to Rs. 4,52,017.30 as compared to the rebate which was allowed to them. Therefore, there was an excess rebate as pointed out above availed of by the appellants. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 6.11.79 as to why they should not be required to pay back the aforesaid amount of excess rebate. In defence, the appellants contended that the demand was time-barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules because it was beyond six months since the credit of the amount was taken on 25.11.78 whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 6.11.79.In his adjudication order, the Assistant Collector held that this was a case of erroneous credit/ adjustment which actually gave rise to the Government to ask for refund and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »