Delhi Court March 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.
Greatway (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT553TriDel
1. In this appeal, originally filed as a Revision Application before the Government. of India and on statutory transfer an appeal before us now, the question is the classification of a "Spot Cleaning Gun". The appellants claim that the correct classification of the goods is under sub-item (1) of Heading 84.21 of the Schedule to C.T. Act whereas the case of the department is that the correct classification is under sub-item (2) thereof.2. Shri B.N. Sharma, the Ld. Consultant for the appellants argued that the Spot Removing Gun is meant only for removing spots on fabrics and cannot be used for any of the purposes under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.21, that is to say, it cannot be used for spraying paint, varnish, oil, distemper or cement. He submitted that Note No. (5) to Chapter 84 of the Schedule lays down that "a machine which is used for more than one purpose is, for the purposes of classification, to be treated as if its principal purpose were its sole purpose". He submitted that ...
Sushil Kumar Ahuja Vs. Tarun Roy and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ315; 1987RLR342
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) In persuance of the detention order dated' 30/9/1986, the petitioner was taken into detention on 8/10/1986. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. (2) The detention order is based in respect of an incident dated 30/5/1986 when one V.K. Gaur, an employee of the State Bank of India was caught with U.S. $ 800.00 and Saudi Riyal 8350.00 which he was carrying on his person. He made a confession that he was delivering Foreign Exchange to present petitioner who was also employed with the State Bank of India posted at Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi. He had also given the home address of the petitioner. (4) The detenu has a right to examine the witnesses in rebuttal, has been recognized in A.K. Roy v. Union of India 1982 S.C. 710 and this right has now been recognized as a constitutional right in the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court....
Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)Crimes39; 32(1987)DLT84
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) On 31-8-84, Shri S.K. Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi served a (A)that you are found to have been involved in a case involving offence of robbery and criminal conspiracy; (B)that there are reasonable grounds for believing that you are engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapter V(A) and XXVII of Indian Penal Code (C)that your movements and acts are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to the persons and property: (d) that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against you in public due to fear of their person and property. (2) Feeling aggrieved of the order of externment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Lt. Governor of Delhi. His appeal was rejected by order dated 31-3-86. It is against this order, the petitioner has preferred to file the writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 27-1-86 dashed by Shri S.K. Singh. the then Deputy Commissioner of police exte...
Ramjas College Vs. Labour Court No. 4 and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ163Del
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of an exparte award dated 26th June, 1984 passed by the Labour Court, Delhi.2. The petitioner is a constituent college of the University of Delhi. According to the petitioner, it had employed respondent No. 2, Ram Daya, as an ad hoc Mali. His services were terminated with effect from 5th June, 1982,3. A dispute arose regarding this termination. The Delhi Administration then referred the following term of reference to the Labour Court, Delhi for its adjudication.'Whether the termination of services of S/Shri Lotan Singh and Ram Dayal is illegal and/or unjustified and, if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?'4. On receipt of the reference, the Labour Court directed notice to be issued to the parties for 20th July, 1983. The case of the petitioner is that Dr. Kartar Singh as the Principal of the College but he was suspended from service in March, 1982. The College d...
Pritpal Kaur and ors. Vs. D.T.C. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: I(1987)ACC393
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal by the legal representatives of deceased Darshan Singh for enhancement of compensation. The claimants had claimed the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- but the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 57,337/-.2. The accident took place on 10-11-1972 on Najafgarh Road. The deceased Darshan Singh was driving the scooter number DHO-6865. Near Sant Pura on Najafgarh Road a D.T.C. bus number DLP 1740 hit the deceased. As a result of the accident Darshan Singh died. On behalf of the claimants number of eye witnesses had appeared. No evidence was produced by the respondent DTC. I have been taken through the evidence on record and I am satisfied that the Tribunal has correctly recorded the finding regarding the negligence of the D.T.C. bus in question, namely, that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the said bus. Darshan Singh died because of the injuries received by him in the said accident.3. At the time of his death Darshan Singh wa...
Perfect Electric Concern (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT110TriDel
1. The revision application filed before the Govt. of India, on transfer to the Tribunal is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants manufacture Motor Vehicle Parts and accessories at Sunder Nagar, Jamshedpur. During the period prior to 1-3-1979, the goods were exempted under Notification No. 99/71 dated 29-5-1971.During the Finance Bill of 1975 Motor Vehicle Parts were taken of TI 34A and were described as "Parts and Accessories of the Motor Vehicles, tractors including trailers as having been specified under TI 34A but classifiable under the said items". The above description determined the liability till enactment of the Finance Bill of 10-5-1979. From 1-3-1979 to 31-3-1979 clearances not exceeding Rs. 1,25,000/- were allowed in respect of unclassified motor vehicle parts subject to the condition (i) that the Capital Investment on Plant & Machinery in the factory was below Rs. 10 lacs and the clearance value of such parts and accessories during the period 1-4-1978 to 28-2-1...
Jayant Oil Mills Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC166
1. In this case, the appellants imported a consignment of Coconut Oil described as "Crude Coconut Oil" which was assessed to basic Customs duty at the standard rate of 60% ad-valorem prescribed in the Customs Tariff and was also charged to additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In the Bill of Entry, the appellants claimed benefit of Preferential rate of duty under Notification No.352/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. They filed a refund application claiming re-assessment of the goods at preferential rate of duty and also refund of additional duty. Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) rejected the refund claim on the ground that Republic of Singapore was not included in the schedule attached to the Notification No. 342/76.Appeal was filed against the said order of the Assistant Collector, but the same was also rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The present appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals).2. Collector (Appeals) has held ...
Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC135; ILR1987Delhi93
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the Challenge is to the action of the respondents in not releasing the goods which had been imported and also to the levy of redemption fine and Customs duty on the said goods. 2. The petitioner is an undertaking of the Punjab State Government. The Canadian Hunger Foundation, Canada and one Canadian of India origin gifted machinery and equipment to the State of Punjab for setting up an exotic cattle breeding farm at Ropar. 3. The then Chief Minister of Punjab wrote a letter dated 7th January 1976 to the Union Ministry of Finance requesting for an order being passed under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for exemption from payment of Customs duty. Pending decision on the request of the State Government, the Central Government permitted provisional duty-free clearance of the machinery and equipment on an undertaking being given by the State Government that in the event of the duty being chargeable t...
Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1649; 32(1987)DLT87; 1987(13)DRJ1
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) By means of this application moved under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Smt. Kashmeri Devi wd/o Gopi Ram (deceased) prays for the cancellation of the bail already granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 who are Sub-Inspectors of Police (under suspension) of Police Station Patel Nager, New Delhi. They were granted bail on 2-9-1986 by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge in the case Fir 336 of 1986 under Sections 304/342/34 Indian Penal Code of Police Station Patel Nagar-. Another co-accused Constable Jagmal Singh was declined bail on 5-9-1986 by Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge but he was subsequently granted bail by Shri N.C. K.ochhar, Sessions Judge (as his Lordship then was) palpably on the ground that when his two co-accused with higher status had been granted bail , bail should not be denied to him.(2) The first information report in this case has been recorded on the statement of one Sudesh Kumar according to whom on ...
Mis. Punjab Diary Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT241(Del); 1987RLR319
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the challenge is to the action of the respondents in not releasing the goods which had been imported and also to the levy of redemption fine and customs duty on the said goods. (2) The petitioner is an undertaking of the Punjab State Government. The Canadian Hunger Foundation, Canada and one Canadian of Indian origin gifted machinery and equipment to the State of Punjab for setting up an exotic cattle breeding farm at Ropar. (3) The then Chief Minister of Punjab wrote a letter dated 7th January 1976 to the Union Minister of Finance requesting for an order being passed under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for exemption from payment of customs duty. Pending decision on the request of the State Government, the Central Government permitted provisional duty-free clearance of the machinery and equipment on an undertaking being given by the State Government that in the event of the duty being chargeable th...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »