Delhi Court October 1987 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.
Bank of India Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhalla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi79; [1991]70CompCas340(Delhi)
Mahesh Chandra, J. 1. BY this order, I propose to dispose of issues Nos. 3 and 4 framed, vide orders dated February 10, 1987, by G. C. Janin J. in this suit for recovery of Rs. 6,47,476.31 inasmuch as both these issues were ordered to be treated as preliminary. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff, Bank of India, for recovery of Rs. 6,47,476.31 against the defendant, Shri Vinod Kumar Hhalla, sole proprietor of Navik Commercial Enterprises. The issues are as follows : '3, Whether the suit was bad for misguide of parties 4. Whether proper court fee had been paid ?' 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the plaint and the written statement and the documents placed on record and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me, I have come to the following findings : Issue No, 3. - It would be appropriate to mention at the outset that from the perusal of the plaint, it would be found that the suit relates to recovery of amounts due to the pla...
Roop Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1655
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this order I will dispose of two petitions one filed by Roop Chand (Cr. M. (M) 1228/87] and the other by Kalu Ram [Cr. M. (M) 1287187] both filed under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) seeking their release on bail. Both the petitioners are brothers. They Along with 19 or 20 other accused are facing trial for offences under Ss. 147/148/149/341/427/329/307/302/120B, Indian Penal Code . All the co-accused except the petitioners have been released on bail. Teja, one of the co-accused, is presently on interim bail. A cross-case has also been registered against the complainant party which consists of 19 accused. They are also facing trial for similar offences except S. 302 Indian Penal Code . All of them have been released on bail. (2) These are third or fourth applications of the petitioners, their last applications haying been dismissed 10th August, 1987. Challan in the case has already been filed and I am told that first date of hearing...
Kamlapati Khatri Vs. Sharda Prakashan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT392
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and Civil Procedure Code . praying for an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing literary work 'BHUTNATH.' (2) The case of the plaintiff is that volumes 3 to 7 of this work were written by his father, Shri Durga Prasad Khatri, and volumes 1 and 2 were written by the plaintiff's grand-father, Shri Devki Nandan Khatri. The plaintiff contends that the defendants have no copyright in their favor and, thereforee, are not entitled to publish volumes 3 to 7 of the said literary work. (3) The defendants have filed reply and have also moved application under Order 39, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code . The case of the defendants is that the literary work Bhutnath is written by Shri Devki Nandan Khatri and not Shri Durga Prasad Khatri. It is further the case of the defendants that Shri Devki Nandan Khatri admittedly died in the year-1913 and, according to the provisions of section 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957, all the s...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Joginder Paul and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes717; 33(1987)DLT285
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this appeal the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has challenged the legality of the judgment dated 14th October, 1981 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi by which the conviction of the respondents herein has been set aside under Section 7 read which Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The admitted facts are as follows : (1)Food Inspector Chander Singh purchased a sample of Cow's milk for analysis on 17th September, 1976; (2) Notice under clause (j) of Rule 9 of the Act was not given to the respondents; and (3) The said sub-rule was amended w.e.f. 13th February, 1977.(2) The learned Appellate Court was of the view that non-compliance of the sub-rule was fatal to the prosecution case. At the relevant time clause (j) of Rule 9 read as follows : 'To send by hand or registered post a copy of the report received in Form Iii from the Public Analyst to the person f...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Munshi Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes753; 33(1987)DLT390
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is an appeal filed by Municipal Corporation Delhi (Hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') challenging the acquittal of Respondent-Munshi Ram and Upendar Kumar for offence under Section 349(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). (2) Munshi Ram was tenant inthepremisesNo.1l40/7GaliSamosha, Farash, Khana, Delhi. Upendar Kumar is the owner of the house. On 17.11.79, the said house was inspected by the Junior Engineer of the Corporation who found that it was in a dangerous condition and required immediate repairs. The notice was issued under Section 348(4) of the Act to the tenant as well as the owner for getting the said portion repaired within 15 days of the service of the notice. Since repairs were not carried out, complaint was made by the Corporation against the present two respondents under Section 348(1) of the Act read with Section 461 of the Act. (3) By the impugned Judgment, the Ld. M.M. acquitted the...
Hindustan thermo Prints Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT121TriDel
1. M/s. Hindustan Thermo Prints Ltd. New Delhi imported at Calcutta Port a consignment of 295 reels of "Base Paper furnish 60% Mechanical substance 63.5 GSM" and presented a Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods. The customs authorities classified the goods under heading No.48.01/21( 1) of the First Schedule (hereinafter referred to as the Schedule) to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants represented against the said classification and sought classification and assessment under heading No. 48.01/21(3) of the Schedule as "other printing and writing paper1', on the ground that the imported paper has specific properties which rendered its use exclusively for vapour phase heat transfer printing possible. It was also stated that the paper would be used in the appellant's flexographic paper printing press to manufacture heat transfer printing paper which, in turn, would transfer designs on to polyster fabrics involving transfer of dyes to the extent of nearly 90%. It was urged th...
Collector of Customs Vs. O.E.N. India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT235TriDel
1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether Resistors (Resistance Coil) imported by the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 172-Cus/77. The Respondents plead that the goods are part of Potentiometer and cannot be considered as Resistors. The Revenue who filed the appeal argued that the imported goods are nothing but resistors and according to serial No. 8 of the Notification, they would be entitled to the concession only after power rating is upto 20 watt.2. Shri J. Gopi Nath, Ld. SDR submitted that there is no dispute about basic classification of the imported goods under Heading 85.18/27(1)CTA. He argued that resistors are excluded from the concessional rate. Shri Gopi Nath stated that the Appellate Collector held that the goods were parts of Potentiometer and wrongly allowed the appeal inasmuch as even if the goods were parts of Potentiometer they continued to be resistors. Shri Gopi Nath referred to Note 2 of Section XVI of CTA accord...
Vidyut Prabha Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT579aTriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, OR No. 61/82-Adjn. dated 3.5.1983. In accordance with his order, the Additional Collector held that tinned copper wire was not bare copper wire and would, therefore, not be entitled to the concession under Notification No. 208/79-CE dated 11.6.1979 which exempted bare copper wires finer than 14 SWG from central excise duty.2. The learned counsel, Mr. Rao on behalf of M/s Vidyut Prabha, argued that tinning still leaves the wire a bare wire. A bare wire is in contrast not to tinning or some such processes, but to insulation with plastic, paper, glass material etc. This wire, although tinned to protect it from atmospheric corrosion is still a bare copper wire. The notification disentitles only copper insulated copper wire. Mr. Rao said that the tinning was a technological necessity as the wire is required for soldering purposes.3. The learned SDR said that this was no longer a bare copper wir...
Subbiah Foundry Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT102TriDel
1. The learned counsel for M/s. Subbiah Foundry, Coimbatore, requested condonation of the delay of 1 month 19 days in filing this appeal.After hearing both sides, we condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the case on merits.2. Mr. Tankala learned counsel for M/s. Subbiah Foundry, Coimbatore, said he adopted all the arguments advanced on behalf of M/s. Texino Industries, Coimbatore, in Appeal No. E. 1904/83-B1.3. The learned SDR for his part said his arguments would be the same as in the.4. In the Texmo Appeal E. 1904/83-B1, we announced our judgment in order No. 569/87-B1 dated 31-8-1987 and held that the rotor and the stator of a monoblock pump were parts of an electric pump and were classifiable under Item 30-D. We rule similarly here and reject this appeal....
Sarinsons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1987
Reported in: (1993)(67)ELT418TriDel
1. The appellants imported on 11-7-1985, 27 packages containing Zip Fastners and by filing a Bill of Entry sought clearance of the same.Along with the Bill of Entry, they submitted an Invoice No. S/T-0627.The Customs suspected that the imported goods were undervalued and that quantity or quality of the goods was misdeclared. Therefore, they conducted certain investigations and issued a show cause notice. In this notice they asked the appellants to show cause inter alia, why the assessable value of the goods under import should not be taken as Rs. 3,34,735 as against Rs. 1,28,035 declared by the appellants. They also threatened confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty.2. After due process including consideration of the reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing, the Collector (Customs) passed the impugned order. He held that there was misdeclaration, under-valuation and unauthorised importation in respect of the imported goods. He ordered that the goods be valued at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »