Delhi Court November 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Industrial Oxygen Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC265Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents manufacture gases falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 14-H and other goods falling under T.I. 68. They sent Inox expansion engines and Inox molecular seive battery falling under Tariff Item 68 to their factory at Mandi Govindgarh under G.P. Nos. 64 and 65 dated 22-9-1982 claiming exemption of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975, as amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. This exemption was available when the goods were sent to another factory after observing the procedure laid down in Chapter-X of the Central Excise Rules. In this case, the consignee factory at Mandi Govindgarh had not obtained L-6 licence before the goods were sent to them and there was also no CT-2 certificate. On arrival of the goods at the destination, the consignee factory gave an intimation of receipt of the goods to the Central Excise Officer. A show cause notice dated 18-12-1982 was issued to t...
Sham Lal Bhalla Vs. T.S. Bhalla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)ARBLR359(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT179
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) The present application has been filed by defendant under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of suit filed by plaintiff for rendition of accounts. (2) Vide deed of partnership dated January 1, 1971, plaintiff and defendant entered into partnership for purposes of continuing the old business of automobile engineers under the name and style of M/s Bhalla Motors. The principal place of the firm was agreed to be at 49/12, Block, E, Okhla Industrial Area, phase Ii New Delhi. The profits and losses of the partnership business are borne by the parties equally. It is alleged in the plaint that during the course of business, the firm acquired aforesaid plot No. 49/12, Block E, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi measuring 700 sq. yds. The plaintiff was carrying on business at Bombay while defendant was carrying on the business at Delhi. The partnership was at Will and the accounting year of the firm was from April I to March 31, the next year. On the aforesaid plot, con...
Ever Green Enterprises Vs. B.M. Auto India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT168
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) Plaintiff M/s. Even Green Enterprises (Regd.) has filed the present suit for recovery ofRs. 1,04,025.93 p. against defendant. Defendant was duly served. Mr. Anand Banerjee appeared for defendant before Deputy Registrar on May 8, 87. It was directed that the written statement be filed within four weeks. No written statement has been filed inspire of last opportunity having been granted to the defendant, by Deputy -Registrar. This is a fit case where I should exercise power under Order 8, Rule 10 of C.P.C. and pronounce judgment as defendant has failed to file written statement within the time allowed by the court. It is deemed that the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff.(2) Plaintiff is a registered^ partnership firm and Shri Krishan Kumar Ahuja is one of the registered partners. The plaintiff is engaged in business of. all kinds of industrial oils and lubricants. Upon orders received from the defendant, plaintiff supplied to defendant industrial oils/l...
Escorts Ltd. Vs. Surinder Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT104
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The respondents were the applicants before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi. They were trading under the name and style of New Era Electric Wares. On 14th April, 1967 the respondents made an application for registration in part 'A' of the Register a Trade Mark consisting the word 'ESCORT', in Clause 9, in respect of 'Electric wires and cables'. The said application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and opposition was filed by the appellants, M/s. Escorts Ltd. (for short 'Escorts'). (2) In the opposition the Escorts pleaded that it was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in the year 1944. They are a large manufacturing concern and are manufacturing various types of machinery and electrical goods. They pleaded that they are the registered proprietors of the trade mark 'Escorts' in various classes for various types of goods manufactured by them, the details of which were given in para 2 of the notice of opposition. It was claimed that the...
Sunil Vasudeva and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi184; 34(1988)DLT37A; 1988(14)DRJ170; 1988RLR23
Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) The plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000.00 against the Delhi Development Authority on the allegations that the plaintiffs owned property known as Plot No. 2, Block No. 18, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the super-structure thereof; that the land beneath the said land is leasehold, on a lease granted initially in favor of Smt.Sita Vasudeva, mother of the plaintiffs by the erstwhile Delhi Improvement Trust, the predecessor of the defendant-Delhi Development Authority vide lease deed dated 31-1-1942; that the plaintiffs became owners/lessees under the defendant on a gift of the said property by their mother in equal shares which gift was accepted by the defendant and accordingly the property was mutated in the records of the defendant in the name of the plaintiffs as owners/lessees to the extent of 1/3rd share each; that in terms of the lease deed dated 31-1-1942 and subsequently renewed from time to time, there is a provision that in the ...
R.B. Kapoor Vs. Manek N. Dastur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi257; 1988(14)DRJ201
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) These two applications have been filed by the petitioner-landlord during the pendency of the revision petition. The first application (CM 1664/87) has been filed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, Order 7 Rule 7 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record certain subsequent facts mentioned in the application. The second application (CM 2664/87) arises out of the first application and is connected therewith and seeks permission to place on record documents filed Along with this application. In order to dispose of these applications it is necessary to give brief facts of the case which are as follows.(2) The petitioner is the landlord. On 17th November, 1968 the- premises i.e. ground floor, Bearing No. 127, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, were let by the petitioner to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 750.00 . On 19th November, 1979 the petitioner filed a petition for eviction against the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) on the gro...
Madhoprasad Mahabirprasad Vs. C. C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT361TriDel
1. Show cause notice dated 7-10-83 was issued to the appellants M/s.Madhoprasad Mahabirprasad (Supplies) Pvt. Ltd. alleging that they had, during the period 20-5-79 to 9-12-1982 removed a large quantity of processed cotton fabrics without observing the necessary excise formalities and had evaded duty to the extent of Rs. 15,16,738.58 paise. On adjudication after receipt of reply, the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta under his order dated 11-10-85 held the charges to be established. He confirmed the duty demand as abovesaid. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000.00. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, advocate for the appellants and Smt D. Saxena for the department.3. Shri Lakshmikumaran submitted that he would not be advancing any arguments to controvert the finding of the Collector that as alleged in the show cause notice goods had been removed without observing excise formalities and without payment of duty. He further submitt...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modern theatres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC625Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents M/s. Modern Theaters Ltd. cleared four prints of a dubbed film "Bandipotu Mutha" (Telugu) and four prints of dubbed film "Asaadualaku Asaduythlu" (Telugu), availing the exemption under Notification 275/77-C.E., dated 12-8-1977. Show cause notice dated 21-8-1981 was issued to them that since the duty concession in respect of the said films have already been availed of in respect of the original Tamil version no such exemption was further available in respect of the dubbed versions and therefore they are liable to pay duty of Rs. 4,725.00. The respondents replied denying liability. On adjudication the Assistant Collector, under his order dated 2-10-1982 confirmed the demand. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 21-2-1983. In doing so the Collector relied on an order of the Central Board in another appeal' relating to Prasad Film Laboratories. This appeal by the Collector of Central Excise Madras is against the above s...
Kelvinator of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC313
1. A common issue is involved in these 13 appeals, they arise out of a common impugned order, relate to the same appellants and were argued before us together. This combined order will dispose of all of them.2. The appellants manufacture Refrigerators. They market them through their four exclusive wholesale dealers, namely, M/s. Gem, M/s. Leonard, M/s. Expo Machinery and M/s. Tropicana. The appellants give one year's warranty for the complete Refrigerator and all parts thereof (except the light bulb and the crisper glass). During this warranty period, they provide free repair and replacement for defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service. This free service is available only within the municipal limits of the area served by an office of the wholesale dealer or his authorised dealer from whom the Refrigerator has, been originally purchased. The appellants include the cost of this one year warranty in their sale price as well as assessable value of the Refrigerator ...
Daulat Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT304
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) On September 14, 1987, I recorded the following order : 'By this petition the petitioners seek quashing of the charge framed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The petitioners have been charged for contravening the provisions of the Delhi Edible Oil (Licensing and Control) Order 1977 read with the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order 1947 for allegedly in possession of certain quantity of Rbd palm oil and rapeseed oil for the purpose of exporting the same outside Delhi and thereby having attempted to transport the edible oil products from the Union Territory of Delhi to a place outside Delhi. The petitioners are, thereforee, alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It may be stated that on the basis of an Fir dated 23rd May 1983, a case was registered against the petitioners for having been in possession of certain quantity of Rbd palm oil, rapeseed oil, til oil, arandi oil and hydro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »