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.
Standard theatre Supply Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT72aTriDel
1. Both the appeals were heard and are being decided together as they are based on common questions of facts and law.2. The question decided by the impugned order was about the classification of Reflectors for Cinematographic Projectors imported by the appellants. The Customs classified the goods under Heading 85.18/27(4) as part of arc lamps. The appellants claimed re-classification under Heading 90.02 CTA (read with Heading 90.08) as parts of Projectors. Further the Assistant Collector held that the ITC Licence produced by the appellants did not cover the goods imported.3. Therefore two questions arise. The first is the correct classification of reflectors imported by M/s. Standard Theatre Supply Co. (hereinafter referred to as importers) and whether the goods could have been imported under OGL.4. Shri Balani, Ld. Advocate for the importers argued that the reflectors should be considered as part of Projectors being lens of mirrors and having been mounted. Referring to CCCN explanato...
Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT70TriDel
1. The question that arises in this appeal is the classification of two articles imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry No. 2742D, dated 29-8-1979. The two articles in question are : The Temperature recorder was classified under Heading No. 90.28(1) CTA and the Recording Controller under Heading No. 85.18/27( 1) by the Assistant Collector. The appellants want re-classification of all the goods under Heading No. 90.28(4) read with 90.24(1) as apparatus and instrument.2. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim and held that the imported items were individual instruments with individual functions and were therefore correctly classifiable as done.3. The Collector Customs (Appeals) before whom the appellants went in the appeal held that the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 90.29(2). Under this item the rate of duty was higher than what was paid by the appellants. As a result the Collector rejected the appellants' appeal.4. Shri Somaiya, Ld. Representative of t...
Amit Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT640TriDel
1. The appellants had an Import Licence which included the following goods: - "VIDEO MAGNETIC TAPE IN ROLLS, PAN CAKES, JUMBO ROLLS, REELS, ALL FORMS EXCLUDING VIDEO CASSETTES." The above description corresponded to entry 470(22) of Appendix-5 of the Import Policy for April 1983 to March 1984. Against this licence, the appellants imported the goods which, on examination, were found to be blank tapes on hubs. The lower authority has held that the entry "Video Magnetic Tapes in Hubs" appeared at entry 561(20) of Appendix 3.Appendix 3 was a list of limited permissible items while Appendix 5 was a list of automatic permissible items. The lower authority has held that since the goods corresponded to the specific entry of Appendix 3 and this specific entry prevailed over the general entry of Appendix 5, the importation made was unauthorised. Further, the lower authority enhanced the price of the goods imported from 25 US Cents to 27 US Cents per 100 ft. He has done so on the ground that com...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Berger Paints India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT652TriDel
1. This appeal and the stay application came up on an earlier occasion.It was noticed that the Collector's authorisation in favour of the officer filing the appeal was not available. Time was, therefore, granted to the appellants to produce the authorisation.2. One authorisation dated 3-4-1987 was produced by the Ld.Departmental Representative on 22-4-1987. However, as the appeal was filed on 19-1-1987 and the authorisation was dated 3-4-1987 the same could not be accepted. The Ld. SDR was given time as requested to show that a valid authorisation from the Collector in favour 6f the Assistant Collector (who filed the appeal) existed at the time of filing the appeal. This time was extended twice at the request of the Department's representative.3. Finally the Ld. SDR produced an earlier order of Collector dated 24-9-1986 by which the Collector authorised the Asstt. Collector (Tribunal and Revenue) of the Calcutta Central Excise Collectorate to act on his behalf in the matter of filing ...
Brij Mohan Arora Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi321; 1988(14)DRJ157
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This execution first appeal has been presented to this Court by Shri Brij Mohan Arora-judgment debtor challenging the order dated August 26, 1985. of Shri J.D. Kapoor, Additional District Judge, by which he had dismissed the objection petition filed by the appellant challenging the attachment of house No. C-48, East Krishan Nagar, Delhi, in execution of money decree obtained by Bank of Baroda against the appellant and three other judgment debtors for recovery of Rs. 41,251/3 IP. with costs and future interest.(2) The case of the appellant in the objection petition was that the aforesaid house is his main residential house and was exempt from attachment in execution of the money decree in view of Section 60, Sub-section (1) Clause (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi. The aforesaid clause had been introduced by the Punjab State by Amendment Act of 1942 made under Section 35 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, ...
Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. R.C. Yaduvanshi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT258; 1988(14)DRJ194
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) A writ of certiorari has been sought by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 6/12/1986, passed by Shri R.C. Yaduvanshi, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, by which he had granted an interim relief requiring the petitioner to pay to the Workman, namely, Mehar Singh respondent No. 2 the full wages with effect from the date of the application i.e. 10/10/1985, till the final adjudication of the reference pending before him.(2) Facts, in brief, are that on 24/1/1975, respondent No. 2 was appointed as a temporary clerk when his services were terminated on 15/7/1976 and on 11/5/1977, he was re-appointed as a temporary clerk. On the basis of certain allegations of misconduct a committee was formed by the Management of the petitioner and the said committee submitted its report to the Establishment Committee of the petitioner-Bank which then appointed one Shri C.L. Sehgal, an Inquiry Officer. A charge sheet was issued and on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer, ...
U.K. Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas609(Delhi); ILR1987Delhi513
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This is an application of the plaintiff U.K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi against defendant No. 1 Oriental Bank of Commerce (A Govt. of India Undertaking). Nehru Place New Delhi under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to restrain the letter from appropriating any of the present or future credit balances in any of the plaintiff's account with defendant No. 1 towards the retirement of the documents received against the latter of credit No. NP/URD/ILC/86/l62 dated 11-9-1986 opened by the plaintiff with defendant No. 1, as also restraining defendant no. 1 from appropriating/utlising or otherwise admitting the sum of Rs. 40 lacs deposited by the plaintiff with defendant no. 1 and held under Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 476/86 dated 11-9-1986.(2) Defendant No. 2 Drechat Chemic B. v. Spuiweg 74. 3311 G.V. Dordrecht, Holland is the foreign seller having defendant No. 4 Vijay Dyes and Chemicals, Bombay as its agent in India. Defendant No. 2 ...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi10
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) On 23-8-1980 at about 8.15 P.M . Shri Brahm Sarup, a Junior Clerk in the electricity Branch, District-I, Chandni Chowk, came to the police Station, Seelampur and lodged the report that he was residing at house No A-31/52/7. Bhatia Gali, Police Station Seelampur, Delhi, and Shri Ghanshyam Dass Aggarwal was a tenant in the said house. He left the house early in the morning after putting a lock on his room. He (complainant)' had left the house at about 9.30 A.M. for going to his office at Chandni Chowk, leaving behind his. wife, Smt Rani Devi all alone. His son, Santosh Kumar aged 9 years and daughter Sushma aged 7 years had already left for their school at about 7 A M Shri Chhote Lal,is brother-in-law who was staving with him had also left the house in the morning for going to the house of his (complainants) real uncle in Gali No.6 ' (2) When he returned home from the office at about 6.45 P.M. he found many persons present outside his house. On reaching near the house...
Om Swarup Vs. Badan Sinch and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT333
Sananda Bhandare, J.(1) Since a very short point is involved, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the revision petition itself. (2) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Sub Judge, Delhi dated 30th July 1987 whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure amendment of the plaint was dismissed. (3) The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit being suit no. 257/82 in the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi for permanent injunction against the defendants i.e. the respondents herein claiming exclusive possession of the land in question in view of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 3'. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they denied having entered into any such arrangement/agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 3. The plaintiff petitioner, thereforee, by way of the amendment application wants to add pa...
Salim Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes794; 34(1988)DLT1; 1988(14)DRJ85
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order dated 22-11-1985 of Mr. V.S. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, convicting the appellant under Sections 392 and 397 Indian Penal Code . and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 for the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code . and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, and further sentencing him under Section 397 Indian Penal Code . to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine Rs. 200.00 and again in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprison ment for 6 months. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were further ordered to run concurrently.(2) The appellant, Salim, along with two others, namely, Satish Kumar and Avadh Kumar, was charged firstly for an offence under Sections 392/34 I.P.C. and secondly for an offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code . read with Section 392 Indian Pena...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »