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.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Silver Tone Radio Electrical Co. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes170; 33(1987)DLT395
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals- filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. One of them is Cri. Appeal No. 64/82 filed against M/s. Silver Tone Radio Electrical Company through its partner Mr. Raghubir Singh. The other appeal is filed against M/s S.K. Electric Company and its partner Mr. Raj. Pal. The allegations of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the Corporation') are that the respondents in both the cases were carrying out unauthorised digging of earth for the purpose of constructing a basement in their shops. The premises number of the shop in first appeal (Cr. A. 64/82) is 1681/11 Bhagirath Place, Delhi and the premises in the other appeal (Cr. A. 7/82) is 1680/11, Bhagirath Place, Delhi. (2) The facts are that Mr. S.S. Sharma, a Junior Engineer of the Corporation, had visited the premises on 20th June, 1979 and found that the respondents were carrying out digging therein. He was of the view that the digging was being carried out ...
Prof. M.M. JaIn (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Faquir Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC296
S.B. Wad, J.1. During the pendency of this appeal on 30-6-1987, appellant No. 1 Prof. M.M. Jain has died. This application has been moved for bringing the L. Rs. of the deceased appellant on record. There is no objection in this regard from the other side. The application is allowed. The cause title stands amended accordingly.F.A.O. 120/74.2. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is filed by father and mother of deceased Kumari Nandini Jain who died in an accident on 9-9-1966. The deceased was traveling in a four seater auto-rickshaw bearing No. DLR 136 which collided with motor cycle No. DLW 3877. The motor cycle No. DLW-3877 was going from Darya Ganj towards Chandni Chowk, while the four seater was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the accident Nandini Jain suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 26,520/- ag...
Chakkan Lal Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC84Tri(Delhi)
1. When the aforesaid appeals were called for hearing on 14-10-1987, none appeared for the appellants. The Court-master however, brought to the notice of the Bench an application dated 9-10-1987 from the learned advocate of the appellants for adjournment of hearing in the aforesaid appeals on the ground that "for the last two months I have not been keeping good health and have been advised complete rest; I have recovered slightly but not to the extent of undertaking any arduous journey". He have carefully considered the request of the learned advocate. But we are not inclined to accept this request for the reasons mentioned hereafter.2. The Bench observed that Stay application numbering C/stay/ 32-36/87-NRB in A.No. 90-94/87-NRB and C/stay/47-49/87-NRB in A.No.C/118-120/87-NRB, were fixed for hearing for the first time on 17-2-1987. Thereafter on the request of the learned advocate for the appellants, hearing on the stay applications were adjourned on two occasions i.e. 17-2-1987 and ...
Krishan Kant and ors. Vs. Tulsi Bahi Gordhan Bhai Patel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi203; 34(1988)DLT6
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This civil revision has been brought against judgment dated April 16, 1985 of Sh. B. S. Chaudhry, Additional District Judge by which he has dismissed the appeal brought by the appellant against the order dated February 18, 1978 of Sh. R. N. Jindal, Sub-Judge whereby he dismissed the objection petition filed by the objectors-appellants in execution application No. 117/71.(2) Facts in brief are that Moti Sarup, since deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners was a tenant in the premises bearing Municipal No. 3143/IX situated at Lal Darwaza, Bazar Sita Ram. The respondents had filed an eviction petition against Moti Sarup under the provisions of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 on 6th January, 1959. The said suit for ejectment was decreed by Shri H. S. Ahiuwalia, Sub Judge, 1st Class on March 21, 1960. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate court against the judgment and decree of the lower court on March 27, 1962 and a revision petition filed...
J.C. Kapoor and anr. Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC178
S.B. Wad, J.1. The accident took place on 23-2-1967 in which Tarun Kapoor, aged about 7-8 years was killed by the rash and negligent driving of truck No. DLG 1302. The truck was owned by the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. and was insured with the United India Insurance Company. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,000/- as the compensation which was paid by the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd.; the Insurance Company and the driver jointly and severally. This appeal is filed for the enhancement of compensation. No cross-appeal or objection is filed by the respondents against whom the award has been made. In view of this the only question in this appeal is whether the parents of the deceased are entitled to enhancement of compensation.2. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the compensation of Rs. 7,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on a very low side. The Tribunal has not considered the loss to the parents and the pecuniary disadvantage suffered by them as the contribution by the d...
Albright, Morarji and Pandit Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC506
1. Appeal No. 1573/81 has its genesis in the show cause F.No.380/54/81-Cus. II, dated 18-8-1981 issued by the Central Government to M/s. Albright, Morarji and Pandit Ltd. The notice issued under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, proposed to review the Orders-in-Appeal dated 17-5-1980. The notice was issued to three respondents including the present respondent, hereinafter called the "assessee". The present proceedings are, however, confined to the present assessee. The assessee was called upon by the aforesaid notice to show cause why the impugned order in appeal should not be set aside and an appropriate order should not be passed.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that a consignment of "Graphilor Blocks" was imported by the assessee as parts of heat exchangers. The goods were treated as articles of graphite and assessed to Customs duty under Heading No. 68.01/16(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Schedule"). The asse...
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises (P) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC20
1. The appellants M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. manufacture Sorbitol falling under Item 68 CET. Following a visit of the factory premises by the Central Excise officers on 26-2-1985, notice dated 22-4-1985 was issued to them. This was on the basis that the appellants manufacture, and captively consume, starch hydrolysate but had failed to take out a licence with reference to the said manufacture of starch hydrolysate and had been removing the same without payment of duty and without observing the necessary central excise formalities. The Department was of the view that the said starch hydrolysate was glucose and, therefore, fell under Item 1E CET which covered glucose in whatever form including liquid glucose. The appellants replied contending that starch hydrolysate was not "goods" since the same was not marketable and, therefore, no excise duty would be payable on the same. They further contended that the proposed adjudication by the Collector following the above said notic...
Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT80TriDel
1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal is classification, for the purposes of additional duty, of "Asahi Bearings" imported by the appellants under a Bill of Entry No. 585 dated 4-7-1981. The appellants requested re-classification of the goods under Item No. 68 C.E.T. but the Assistant Collector rejected the same and confirmed the classification of the goods under Item No. 49 C.E.T.The Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order. Hence the present appeal.2. Shri R.D. Somoiya, Ld. Representative of the appellants submitted that it has been the practice when I.C.T. was in force to treat the Plummer Block known as Pillow Block as machinery and not a bearing. He argued that the Board's ruling of 1965 to the effect that Pillow Block should be classified as machinery (for the purpose of basic Customs duty) should hold good even though the Tariff has since changed. The Ld. Representative submitted that the classification for the purpose of Customs duty holds good for the levy of...
Makers Development Services (P) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC1
1. The appellants M/s. Makers Development Services (P) Ltd. purchased the mini cement plant of M/s. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (ACC Ltd.) on 29-4-1982. The registers of M/s. ACC Ltd. showed a balance of stock of 1084.89 MT of cement as on that day. The issue in the present case relates to the liability of the appellants to pay duty on that quantity. The case for the appellants before the lower authorities was that the said stock is practically in the nature of dead stock since the said quantity was at the bottom of the silo and could not be removed since the delivery point is at a height of about 3 metres above the bottom of the silo. They further contended that in any event the liability for payment of duty on that quantity should be on the manufacturers thereof (M/s. ACC Ltd.) only and the same could not be recovered from the appellants. It may also be noted at this stage that.' duty payable by M/s. ACC Ltd. would be at Rs. 135/- per MT.While the duty payable by the appellants on th...
Frizair Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT474TriDel
1. Before commencing the hearing, we inquired from Mr. M.S. Sanklacha, Advocate whether M/s. Frizair Corporation has paid the duty as ordered by the impugned order. He replied in the affirmative and produced a copy of a certificate signed by the Superintendent of Central Excise Sanatnagar-II Range, Hyderabad on 28-9-1987 which runs as follows : This is to certify that M/s. Frizair Corporation B-47 & 48, Industrial Estate, Sanatnagar, Hyderabad, have paid Central Excise duty of Rs. 28,426-98 by debiting in RG23 (Part II), S. No. 125 on 9-9-1983 and a penalty of Rs. 7.000/- in personal Ledger Account on 9-9-1983 S. No. 30 as ordered by the Additional Collector, Central Excise in his O.R. No. 2/82 Adjn/Adjn. Order No. 39/83, dated 2-6-1983.The learned SDR objected that the duty had been paid by debiting to RG 23 which is not permissible; it should be paid by cash. This may well be so, but we can go only by what an officer of Central Excise certifies. A Superintendent recorded clearly...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »