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.
Indian Airlines Vs. Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR689]; (1987)IILLJ512Del
1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi, dated 25 February, 1985, on an application filed by respondents 2 to 20 under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming wages and leave wages equal to the wages paid to regular employees of the petitioner-Indian Airlines doing the same type of work. 2. The case of respondents 2 to 20 before the Labour Court was that the respondents were engaged by the Indian Airlines, i.e., the petitioner herein and were posted at the Indian Airlines and Air India Staff Housing Colony, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, for the purposes of rendering maintenance service for sanitary, water supply and sewage work. These respondents were working under the direct financial supervision and control of the Indian Airlines through its overseer Sri R. B. Singh. The respondents were issued gate passes for that ...
Narendra Singh Alias Neeru Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)Crimes78; 32(1987)DLT11
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged his externment in pursuance of an order passed by D.C.P. on 6th July 1982 directing the externment of the petitioner for a period of' six months beyond the Union Territory of Delhi. He has also challenged the order of the Lt. Governor dated 6th August, 1982 by which his appeal was dismissed and the order for externment was confirmed. (2) Adimittedly, a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act was served, upon the petitioner and admittedly the order of externment was passed under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act after affording him an opportunity to defend himself. It will be seen that D.C.P. as well as the appellate authority have based their conclusions on the statement of S.H.O. Delhi Cantt. and on the inferences available from the fact that the petitioner was involved in four criminal cases. It was on this basis that both D.C.P. and the appellate authority arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner i:; a desperate d...
Sunder Lal Vs. Sham Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT195
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 23/09/1986 whereby the evidence of the petitioner herein wasclosed.(2) The petitioner had taken the first floor of property no. 5694-5, GaliNo. 3, New Chandrawal,SabjiMandi, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 100.00.The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Sec. 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking the eviction of the petitioner from the said premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The petitioner's application for leave to defend was granted and accordingly the petitioner was to lead evidence in support of the contention that the respondent did not require the premises in question for his bona fide personal need. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the respondent moved an application under Sec. 15(2) of ehe Delhi Rent Control Act which was granted and since the pet...
Collector of Customs Vs. Parkar Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC150
1. By the present application, the appellant - Collector of Customs, Bombay prays for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal to the Tribunal.2. The limitation for filing appeal to the Tribunal is 3 months from the date of communication of the order challenged in appeal. The impugned order was communicated to the appellants on 17-7-1985 and applying 3 months limitation, the appeal should have been filed by 16-10-1985. The appeal was forwarded to the Tribunal by an arrangement of the appellants with the Indian Airlines through hand of pilot on 28-10-1985 and was received in the Tribunal on 1-11-1985. It is thus barred by limitation by 16 days.3. In the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit sworned by one Shri Prem Shanker, Asstt. Collector of Customs, Tribunal Coordination Unit of the new Customs House, Bombay who has been authorised by appellant - Collector of Customs to present this appeal on his behalf, it is urged that Collector of Customs, Bombay approved th...
inarco Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC96
1. In this case, the appellants imported a consignment of Alloprene R-20 (Chlorinated Rubber) which was assessed to basic customs duty under Tariff Heading 39.01/06 at the rate of 100% ad valorem plus auxiliary duty of 30% ad valorem. The goods were also subjected to additional duty at the rate of 42% under Tariff Item 15-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. Duty was paid on 0-12-1982. On 28-12-1982 the appellants claimed re-assessment of the goods so far as the additional duty is concerned on the ground that the additional duty at the rate of 42% ad-valorem under Tariff Item 15-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff was not leviable, but instead, such duty at the rate of 8% ad-valorem under Item 68 C.E.T. was chargeable. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that Chlorinated rubber was a chemical derivative of natural rubber which is specifically classified under Central Excise Tariff Item 15-A(1) of C.E.T. and not classifiable under residuary item 68 of C.E...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Prem Cables (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT739TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi dated 11-3-1982.2. The respondents filed a refund claim of Rs. 5,13,562.70 on 28-7-1978 on the ground that the Capital Investment on the Plant & Machinery installed in the Cable Conductor Portion of the manufacturing unit was not more than Rs. 10 lacs and that the benefit of Notification 199/75 should be extended to them. The refund claim related to the period 11-9-1975 to 28-2-1978. The party had also made the payment under protest. The face value of the machinery in the year 1969-70 was to the tune of Rs. 7,69,869.00 and after giving due allowance for depreciation etc., the value of the Plant & Machinery was Rs. 534,682.00. The Asstt.Collector held that the value of the Plant & Machinery was Rs. 10,48,918.00. The Asstt. Collector also held that the respondents were manufacturing aluminium rods in the same unit and that the capital investment on that Plant & Machinery installed...
Karan Singh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, (West Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT133
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) Malik Sharief-Ud-Din J.-By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice under sections 47/50 of Delhi Police Act dated 15th June 1982. It is being challenged on various grounds and there is no need for me for burdening this order by making reference to the/same excepting that the petitioner has imputed malafides to the officers involved in the actions. (2) In the counter affidavit the respondent has tried to justify the issuance of notice on the ground that the petitioner is engaged in the commission of offences and is habitually indulging in the commission of breach of peace. It is also stated that his presence was considered to be hazardous to the community in general and the notice was issued because of the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police that the witnesses are not coming forward against him in public for fear of their personal safety and the safety of their property. (3) The...
State Vs. Tekan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT34a; 1987RLR412
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) A batch of 23 criminal appeal arising out of the conviction of accused persons under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act are being disposed of on the short ground that these appeals are either barred by time and/or are not maintainable. For that purpose, there is no need for this Court to go into the facts of each case. (2) Article 115 of the Limitation Act provides the period of 60 day's for filing an appeal to the High Court, from a sentence other than the sentence of death, or any other sentence or order not being an order of acquittal. The limitation starts running on the date of sentence/ order of the trial court. (3) The learned counsel for the appellant concedes that out of 23 appeals before this Court, 19 appeals have been filed beyond the period of limitation, even if the time spent in obtaining the certified copies of the impugned judgments is excluded However, his submission is that the office of the Delhi Administration remained under a bonafide mi...
Jagan Nath Aggarwal Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT208; 1987(13)DRJ190
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This is the second appeal of the tenant against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 8-4-1986. Through the impugned judgment the Rent Control Tribunal had confirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller passing an eviction order against the tenant under Section 14(l)(d) and (h) of Delhi Rent Control Act.(2) The appellant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises in 1955. The tenant had purchased another house being C-466, Nanak Chand Basti, Kotia Mubarakpur in 1949. He made some additional constructions in it and let out the said house. In 1966 the house in Kotia Mubarakpur fell vacant and the tenant's son shifted there. Thereafter, he himself shifted to the house at Kotia Mubarakpur. In the suit premises the married daughter of the tenant started staying with her husband. The landlord served the notice of termination on the tenant on 18-8-1978. There are two findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. They are that in 1966 the tenant's house...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Sandip Metal Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT142TriDel
1. By his order No.V(68)17-CL-37/79/15272, dated 20.8.1980 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division K, Bombay decided that goods tike welded trays, wire tiffin, tub, pappad dabba, garma dabbas, dhokla dabba daba ubha and dabba baitha would not be utensils, under the meaning of Notification No. 244/77-CE. He said that wire tiffin was used for carrying food while tub and bucket were used for storing water and hence were not utensils. Pappad dabba, garma dabbas, dhokla dabbas, dabba ubha are tins or boxes for keeping storing different items and hence cannot be called utensils.2. In this he was undoubtedly right. These are largely containers or holders to hold items of food etc. for the purpose of carrying them from house to school or office and so on. Utensils, as the dictionary tells us, are vessels in use in a kitchen; and a vessel is described by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as a "receptacle for a liquid or other substances, often one of circular section and made o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »