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.
Shanti Bhai Desai, Daya Lal Shah Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC375Tri(Delhi)
1. This case was referred to this Bench of three Members in , view of the doubt expressed by the members of the East Regional bench which heard this matter. The doubt was with reference to the correctness of the decision by a two Member Bench of the North Regional Bench in the case of Sudesh Rattan mahajan v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise [1983 ELT 2517], cited by the revenue who argued that Central Government alone has jurisdiction to hear the appeals. In that judgment the provision to be construed was Section 131B (2) of the Customs Act (corresponding to Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act). "Every proceeding which is pending immediately before the appointed day before the Central Government under Section 131, as it stood immediately before that day, and any matter arising out of or connected with such proceeding and, which is so pending shall stand transferred on that day to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may proceed with such proceeding or ...
Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT79TriDel
1. In terms of Notification No. 108 of 1978 CE dated 28-4-1978 the appellants M/s. Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. had claimed rebate of Rs. 5,76,963.00 in respect of excess sugar produced by them.Under letters dated 28-10-1978 and 3-12-1978 the Superintendent had sanctioned rebate of Rs. 3,64,346.39 paise and rejected the claim in respect of the balance of Rs. 2,22,616.61 paise. Subsequently under letter dated 18-4-1979 the Superintendent intimated the appellants that on review it was found that the amount of rebate allowed on free sale sugar should have been to the extent of basic duty only and hence an amount of Rs. 88,524.42 paise had been granted in excess as rebate and that adjusting a sum of Rs. 7,946.93 paise as payable in respect of the quantity of sugar processed out of left over material the balance of Rs. 80,577.49 was to be recovered from the appellants and that they should debit this amount in the PLA. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appell...
Jagdish Raj and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1096Tri(Delhi)
1. In this reference application, the appellants have raised the following points, which according to them are points of law arising out of this Tribunal's order No. A-67 and 68/86-NRB dated 10-2-1986, and have prayed that a reference be made to the High Court under Section 82-B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 : (a) The Tribunal having accepted that 258.5 grams of gold ornaments have been properly acquired by the petitioner firm could not in law order their confiscation or of a part thereof under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act. (b) In view of the findings of the Tribunal that the Gold ornaments weighing 258.5 grams including loss of 2 pieces weighing 40.5 grams stood fully explained, no penalty for violating of provision of Section 55 of the Gold Control Act read with Section 74 could have been imposed in law as when the gold stood physically explained and accounted for, no offence punishable for violation of Section 55 could ever have been deemed to have been committed. ' (c) T...
B.L. Kohli and anr. Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT336; 1986(11)DRJ152; 1986RLR498
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings pending against them under Sections 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter to be referred to as the 'Act') in the Court of Shri G.P. Mittal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, in the case Delhi Administration v. Prem Oil Industries etc. Petitioner No. I B L, Kohli is the nominee of petitioner No. 2 Prem Oil Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. in terms of Section 17 of the Act(2) The facts of the case are that on 26th August, 1980 a sample of Catechu (Katha) was lifted from Prem Oil Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and on analysis it was found to be adulterated as the loss on drying basis was found to be 15.62%, by weight instead of 12% prescribed vide item A : 21 of Appendix 'B' of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). The complaint against the petitioners was lodged by...
Mange Ram and ors. Vs. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ52; 1987LabIC1560
D.K. Kapur, C.J. (1) The appellant had instituted a Suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,27,372.50 and a declaration that he was entitled to a monthly pension ofRs. 812.50 as against Rs. 400.00 granted to him by the respondent Bank. He also claimed a further declaration that he was entitled to an allowance ofRs. 150.00 per month. The Suit was based on the claim that he had no age of retirement and having joined the service of the respondent Bank in the year 1924, he could not be compulsorily retired against his wishes with effect from 1/1/1966, when he was 61 years of age and had put in 41' years of service. (2) The case in the plaint was that the plaintiff had to serve in the Bank till he attained the age of 65 years and thus he claimed a sum of Rs. 1,25,685.00, the calculation of which is set out in paragraph No. 15 of the plaint. The claim is made out-Salary at the rate of Rs. 1,625.00 per month, D.A. at the rate of Rs. 438.75 per month, Additional D.A.,attherateof Rs. 50 per month, and t...
Ujagar Singh Kakkar Vs. Chander Mohan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT108; 1987(12)DRJ124
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 31/8/1984 whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to prove that he bonafide required the premises in question and that he had no other reasonable or suitable accommodation available to him. (2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The property bearing No. 733, Bara Tooti, Sadar Bazar, Delhi was purchased by S. Hari Singh, father of the petitioner in a public auction on 15/5/1959 from the Custodian of Evacuee Property for a sum of Rs. 23,100.00 . At that time the premises in dispute were given on rent to Dwarka Dass. Dwarka Dass died in the year 1977 leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. S. Hari Singh met with an accident and expired on 10th June 1979 leaving behind petitioner as one ...
Kapil Kumar Nigam Vs. Kaniz Fatima
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT18; 1986RLR496
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is deft's appeal against order of Adj dt. 6.8.84 whereby the learned Judge has granted injunction restraining the defendants from managing or dealing with property in dispute and to recover rents from tenants or to change rent receipts. The defendants are heirs of late Jai Gopal Nigam, The dispute relates to the alleged rights of the appellants to manage and deal with (suit) properties. (2) The appellant submits that he is a lessee of the premises protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondents submit that late Shri Ram Gopal Nigam was only agent/license/contractor for collection of rents. We must, thereforee, refer to the two agreements for their proper consideration. (3) The appellant's predecessor is described throughout as and the transaction is described as means rent. In the two agreements the consideration is Rs. 450.00 & Rs. 150.00 respectively. This is described in the agreement as FOR understanding true nature of a transaction we must look to th...
Globe Associates (P.) Limited (In Liquidation) Vs. F.C. Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas814(Delhi); ILR1986Delhi397
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By all these different applications, the accused seek their discharge and these arise out of a criminal complaint filed by the Official Liquidator under S. 454(5) of the Companies Act 1956 (for short 'the Act').(2) M/S. Globe Associates (P) Ltd. was ordered to be wound up provisionally 10-1-1969 and finally orders were passed on 7-3-1969 by this court. The complainant was appointed the Official Liquidator of the Company. Under S. 454(5) and (2) of the Act, the accused who are 5 in number were required to file statement of affairs of the Company. This statement is to be submitted within 21 days of the winding Up order or within such extended time not exceeding 3 months from that date as the Official Liquidator or the court may, for special reasons, appoint : [S. 454(3)]. Then, under sub-s. (5) of S. 454 of the Act, if a person without reasonable cause or excuse makes default in complying with any of the requirements of the section, 'he shall be punishable with impris...
Jainsons Clothing Corporation Vs. the State Trading Corporation of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas526(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT359
D.K. Kapur, C.J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order passed on the application of the plaintiff-appellant praying for an injunction to restrain the State Trading Corporation of India and another from enchashing a Performance Bond/Bank Guarantee dated 1st May. 1985. for the sum of Rs. ll,70,000.00 . This Bank Guarantee was issued by the Punjab and Sind Bank in further once of a contract between the plaintiff and the State Trading Corporation. There was a contract to supply 7,500 M.T of Grade 'B' Indian Basmati Rice between the State Trading Corporation and the Abu Dhabi Municipality. The contract between the plaintiff and the State Trading Corporation was to supply 3,000 M.T. to the foreign buyer, apparently in furtherance of the original contract. The Bank Guarantee was invoked by the plaintiff on 15th June. 1985. In order to prevent the enchshment of the Guarantee, the present Suit was instituted along with was filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code o...
General Talkies Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle-x, New Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR136(Delhi)
N.N. Goswamy, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the orders passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated May 24, 1969, under section 107A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the order dated March 16, 1973, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Company circle, New Delhi, under section 104 of the act. 2. The petitioner is is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and is carrying on the business of distribution as well as exhibition of films. The petitioner-company is controlling certain cinemas in Delhi and in Uttar Pradesh. Its only business is exhibition of motion pictures and is not engaged in any trading or manufacturing activity.jThe assessment for the relevant assessment year 1967-68 was finalised on an income of Rs. 6,41,473. By virtue of section 109 of the Act, the assessed was required to distribute 90% of its distributable income as dividend. The distributable income according to the petitioner being Rs. 2,18,016, the as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »