Delhi Court February 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.
Jugmender Dass Dhan Kanwar and anr. Vs. Taley Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi201; 32(1987)DLT64
Leila Seth, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order dated 5th July, 1986, passed by Mr. M.A. Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, affirming the order dated 18th March, 1986, of Mr. A.K.Garg, Additional Rent Controller. By the said order the evidence of the appellants was closed. (2) The main contention of counsel for the appellants is that a. litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the officials of the court in the performance of their duties. (3) The facts are briefly set out. The respondent Mr. Taley Ram filed a petition praying that the appellants be evicted under the provision of section 14(l)(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. On 9th September, 1985, the trial court closed the evidence of the appellants. The appellants preferred an appeal against this order to the Rent Control Tribunal. Thereafter, on 11th December, 1985, before the Rent Control Tribunal, the respondent agreed to the appellants being permitted to examine certain witnesses. The Rent Control Tribunal wh...
Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC529Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved because their refund claim, arising out of Order Nos. 874 to 878, dated 31-7-1973 passed by the Central Government in revision, has been rejected by both the lower authorities.2., The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants sold their Milkfood 'Viva' through their sole selling agent, M/s. Voltas. The dispute that was taken to the Central Government in Revision Application was for exclusion, from the assessable value, of post-manufacturing expenses, namely ':- The Central Government took up this Revision Application for consideration along with four other Revision Applications filed by the same appellants. The point of dispute in those other four Revision Applications was a different one, namely, whether the sale price charged by the appellants from their sole distributor could form the basis of assessment of central excise duty. However, the Central Government mistook that the question involved in all the five Revision Applications was an i...
Shri Ishtiq Ali Vs. Additional Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC287Tri(Delhi)
1. The following alleged questions of law have been proposed by the applicant said to have arisen out of Order No. A/438/86-NRB dated 22.7.1986 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. CD/Del/2438/83-NRB, for being referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the adjudgment of the confiscation of goods and the imposition of the penalty was lawful, independent of the observance of the provisions of Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the show cause notice dated 24.8.1982 having been issued under the signatures and authority of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Luck-now without being directed by the Additional Collector of Muzaffarpur was violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 122 read with Section 124 of the Customs Act. (iii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the show cause notice under Section 124, as mentioned above, could legally be issued...
B.D.P. Radio Corpn. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT79TriDel
1. The impugned order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi imposes a penalty of Rs. 2500/- on the appellants under Rules 9(2), 226 and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It also demands duty of Rs. 5845/- on 167 sets of cassette tape recorders found short during verification by the Central Excise Officers on 23-2-1984. The excess goods (242 pcs. of tape recorders and 5 radio cassette recorders) found by the Central Excise Officers as not having been accounted for in R.G. 1 and provisionally released to the appellants pending adjudication have been held liable to confiscation and accordingly a sum of Rs. 2000/- taken as security for provisional release of the said goods has also been ordered to be appropriated by the learned adjudicating officer.2. Shri. 3.S. Agarwal, learned advocate for the appellants has argued that in coming to his findings of contravention of the provisions of Rules, the learned adjudicating officer has relied upon a statement dated...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Mansa Ram and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC15Tri(Delhi)
1. Along with the captioned two applications for making reference to the High Court purporting to be under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the applicants have also moved separate applications for condonation of delay of more than two months in filing the reference applications in question on the ground that the delay was not intentional and the issue involved is of public importance.2. After hearing Smt. Nisha Chaturvedi, learned. SDR for the applicants and Shri V.3. Kanetkar, consultant for the respondents, I am of the view that this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days as provided by Proviso to Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the instant case, according to the applicants themselves, the order in question \passed by this Tribunal was received by them on 27-6-1986 and both the applications for making reference were filed in the Registry on 10-11-1986, that is to say, long after 60 days. Section 130 of the Customs Act provides that the Collector of Customs...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Mansa Ram and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT544TriDel
1. Along with the captioned two applications for making reference to the High Court purporting to be Under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the applicants have also moved separate applications for condonation of delay of more than two months in filing the reference applications in question on the ground that the delay was not intentional and the issue involved is of public importance.2. After hearing Smt. Nisha Chaturvedi, learned SDR for the applicants and Shri V.J. Kanetkar, consultant for the respondents, 1 am of the view that this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days as provided by Proviso to Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the instant case, according to the applicants themselves, the order in question passed by this Tribunal was received by them on 27-6-1986 and both the applications for making reference were filed in the Registry on 10-11-1986, that is to say, long after 60 days. Section 130 of the Customs Act provides that the Collector of Customs o...
Manohar Lal Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC464Tri(Delhi)
1. The impugned Order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Indore has absolutely confiscated one National Panasonic Colour T.V.and one National Video Cassette Recorder (VCR) under Section 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. With regard to the VCR, the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the VCRs as a class of goods were notified under Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act as well as under Section 123 of the Customs Act, by notification 204/84 dated 20.7.84. These goods were not so notified on the date of seizure of the goods by the Customs Officers in 1982., Accordingly, the learned advocate has urged that finding of the adjudicating authority that acquisition of VCR by the appellant contravenes the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act or that it has been illicitly imported in the absence of evidence adduced by the appellant is contrary ...
Hindustan Radiators Co. Vs. Hindustan Radiators Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi353; 1987(1)ARBLR182(Delhi); 31(1987)DLT271
The plaintiff (1) M/S. Hindustan Radiators Company, Station Road, Jodhpur, a partnership concern, has filed this suit for permanent injunction against passing off and using its trading style and trade marks by M)s. Hindustan Radiators Limited, Model Town, Delhi, on the allegations that the plaintiff was carrying on business since 1959 and had been manufacturing about hundred types of radiators for use in various vehicles like buses, trucks, cars, jeeps, cranes and compressor etc. under the marks 'HINDUSTAN RADIAtor' and with the initials 'H. R.', short form of 'Hindustan Radiator on the radiators manufactured by it and due to extensive, long and continuous use the trading style 'HINDUSTAN Radiator CO.' and the trade mark 'HINDUSTAN RADIAtor/H. R.'' known and associated with the excellent quality of radiators. manufactured and sold and offered for sale by the plaintiff ; that the plaintiff has since 1959 sold radiators approximately of the value of seven crores of rupees and their prese...
State of Maharashtra Vs. New Delhi Municipal Commitiee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT345
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notices dated 4th January 1972, 8th January 1973 and resolutions dated 18th March 1972 and 1st March 1973 leving property tax for the assessment year 1972-1973 in respect of building owned by the State of Maharashtra. (2) The petitioner has challenged the notices and the resolutions mainly on the ground that the property of the State Government was exempt under Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India from house-tax livable under the Municipal Act, 1911 as applicable to Union Territory of Delhi. (3) The point in question is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in New Delhi Municipal Committee v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others. 1975 M.C.C. 616 wherein relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Re: The Bill to Amend S.20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and S. 3 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. : [1964]3SCR787 it has been held that the pro...
Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1987
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT16TriDel
1. The captioned appeal at S.No. 1 was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government against order of C.B.E.C.mentioned above. On the setting up of this Tribunal the Revision Application was transferred to it in terms of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. Appeal at S.No. 2 is a sequel to the order of the Collector of Central Excises, Meerut, also mentioned above.2. The facts relating to Appeal No. 734/81-D, briefly stated, are that M/s. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. Shamli, (hereinafter the "appellants") are engaged in the manufacture inter alia of molasses. By the Finance Bill (2) of 1980, a specific entry was inserted in the First Schedule (hereafter "CET") to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter the "Act"), for molasses (item No. 15 CC). It appears that appellants made a (false, according to the department) declaration filed by them of the stock of molasse...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »