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.
P.K. Nangia Vs. the Land and Development Officer, New Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi260; 1988(14)DRJ112
G.C. Jain, J. (1) ADMITTED.(2) The petitioner, Pushap Kumar Nangia, and three others, namely Smt. Sita Devi Nangia, Shashi Kumar Nangia and Ravinder Kumar Nangia, were the owners of property bearing No.32-E/21, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. On May 25, 1979 the petitioner brought a suit (Suit No. 666 of 1979) seeking a decree for partition of the said property. The Land and Development Officer was also a party to the suit. A final decree for partition was passed by this Court on March 31, 1980. Under the decree the entire property fell to the share of the petitioner. Other three co-owners were paid Rs. 37,000.00 each by the petitioner.(3) Thereafter the petitioner applied to the Land & Development Officer, respondent No. I, in this petition, for mutating the property in dispute in his name. The said request was declined mainly on the ground that the decree passed by this Court in the partition suit requires registration.(4) Contending that the decree in question did not require any regis...
Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC341
1. These five appeals were heard together as they arose out of a consolidated order-inrappeal disposing of 5 appeals before the Collector, the issue being the same in all the 5 appeals.2. The appellants M/s. Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries Limited obtain duty paid viscose staple fibre and polyester staple fibre and convert the same into cellulosic spun yarn failing under Item 18III Central Excise Tariff. On receipt of Trade Notice No. 157/81 Central Excise dated 26-9-1981 issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, they applied under letter dated 16-4-1982 for grant of set-off in terms of the said notification. Under letter dated 26-4-1982, they were informed that the Assistant Collector had permitted them to avail set-off as claimed by them. Subsequently they received 5 notices under which they were informed that they had failed to mention the particular notification under which set-off was permissible in their case and that there appeared to be no notification issued b...
Nisha Gupta Vs. DolphIn Builders and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT210
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) Respondent No. 2 Balbir Singh had been appointed as the arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties Vide order dated 26.11.1985 passed by this Court. The petition moved under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short the Act) by the petitioner was accepted and disputes and differences between the parties were ordered to be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Balbir Singh for decision and parties were directed to appear before him on 8.12.85 at 10.00 A.M. at his residence. By means of the present petition moved under S. 8 of the Act the petitioner prays for the quashing of the appointment of Sh. Balbir Singh as arbitrator and for a direction that Shri Ashok Nijhawan be appointed to act as sole arbitrator for resolving the disputes and differences between the parties (2) Respondent No. 1 has been proceeded against ex parte in the case as it did not put up appearance in Court despite substituted service by publication of notice in...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC132(Delhi)
ORDERS.B. Wad, J. 1. The respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have withdrawn the amount from the petitioner-bank on the overdraft facility by pleading cars, trucks and other vehicles as a security with the bank. The respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, had also a large claim on account of sales tax dues against the said respondents. Eventually, under the order of this Court some vehicles were attached by respondent No. 1 and the same were sold under the order of the court and the amount was deposited with the petitioner-bank. The main dispute in this petition is between the claim of the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The petitioner claims the entire amount with interest on the ground that the cars in question had become their property under the contract. The amount with interest has now become double and the amount available for the claimants is Rs. 14,36,595.27 with interest up to 15th November, 1987. The Petitioner bank is a nationalised bank and respondent No. 1 is a department of t...
Fibre Foils (P) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC95
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured goods described as 'composite containers' or fibre drums and these were assessed for sometime under T.I. 17(4) CET, but, later on, the same were held to be assessable under T.I. 68 and duty demand was also raised for the goods cleared during the period April, 1982 to June, 1982. The composite containers have" "been described by the appellants as comprising three portions - the top portion; the bottom portion; and the Central cylindrical portion. The main body is formed by continuous winding of a number of layers of paper/board around a sized adopted mandrel, and after further processing, the layers of paper are passed through a glue tank on to the mandrel and a tube is formed; the same is cut to the desired sizes. The open ends of the tubes are closed by sheets of plastic or hardboard or playwood, depending ...
C.C.E. Baroda Vs. Sarangpur Cotton Mills Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)(14)LC260Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay regarding classification of cotton fabrics having different counts of yarn in weft/warp or both. The issue arose as a result of an audit objection holding that in the case of fabrics containing more than one count in either weft or warp, the average count could not be ascertained under the statutory formula read with Tariff Item 19, as it existed prior to 18th June, 1977, and that, therefore, the duty on these fabrics should be payable under Tariff Item No. 19 (1) (2) (f) i.e. at the tariff rate, as "cotton fabrics, not otherwise specified".2. In the appeal before us, the department has admitted that there was a problem as regards to ascertainment of average count in respect of such fabrics which was resolved prospectively by issuing Notification No. 7/78-CE dated 17th Jan., 1978. In the order appealed against the Collector has given benefit of this Notification retrospectively and it is against ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sarangpur Cotton Mills Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)(33)ELT470TriDel
1.This is an appeal against order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay regarding classification of cotton fabrics having different counts of Yarn in weft/warp or both. The issue arose as a result of an audit objection holding that in the case of fabrics containing more than one count in either weft or warp, the average count could not be ascertained under the statutory formula read with Tariff Item 19, as it existed prior to 18th June, 1977, and that, therefore, the duty on these fabrics should be payable under Tariff Item No. 19(1)(2)(f) i.e. at the tariff rate, as "cotton fabrics, not otherwise specified".2. In the appeal before us, the department has admitted that there was a problem as regards ascertainment of average count in respect of such fabrics which was resolved prospectively by issuing Notification No.7/78 dated 17th Jan, 1978. In the order appealed against the Collector has given benefit of this Notification retrospectively and it is against this, that d...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Papyrus Papers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC336
1. The question for decision in this appeal by Revenue is whether Cinder obtained by the respondents while burning coal in the boiler in the respondents factory constitutes manufacture within the meaning of Central Excise Act, 1944 and attracts Central Excise duty liability.2. We have heard Smt. J.K. Chander, Departmental Representative for the appellants and Shri R.K. Virmani, Advocate for the respondents and have perused the papers.3. During arguments, Shri Virmani drew our attention to our decision in Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. [1987 (30) ELT 967] where the Tribunal following the Delhi High Court decision in Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India [1987 (29) ELT 502 Delhi] where rubber scraps and cuttings were held by the Hon'ble High Court not to be goods within the meaning of Central Excise law, held Carbidge sludge not to be goods and not excisable and obtaining of the same not constituting manufacture within the meaning of Central Excise law. Whil...
Sugga Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and Others (Cr. M. (M) Nos. 576 and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas625(Delhi); 1988(14)DRJ97b
D.P. Wadhwa, J. 1. The only question that arises in this petition and other petitions which are being disposed of by this order is whether the offences under section 159, read with section 162 and section 220 again read with section 162, of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, ``the Act''), are continuing offences within the meaning of section 472 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, ``the Code''), so as to remove the bar of limitation to take cognizance of the offences as provided by section 468 of the code. Under sub-section (1) of section 468 of the Code, a court cannot take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation as provided under sub-section (2) of that section. In the case where the offence is punishable with fine only, the period of limitation prescribed is six months. Section 472 of the code provides, however, that in the case of a continuing offence a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during wh...
Kuldip Singh and Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT11; 1988(14)DRJ97
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The only question that arises in this petition and other petitions which are being disposed of by this order is if the offences under Section 159 read with Section 162 and Section 220 again read with Section 162 of the Companies Act 1956 (for short 'the Act') are continuing offences within the meaning of Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'the Code') so as to remove the bar of limitation to take cognizance of the offences as provided by Section 468 of the Code. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 468 of the Code, a court cannot take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation as provided under Sub-section (2) of that section. In the case where the offence is punishable with fine only, the period of limitation prescribed is six months. Section 472 of the Code provides, however, that in the case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »