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.
Prabhakar Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Delhi Financial Cor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT367
Sananda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner company-M/s Prabhakar Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. obtained a loan of Rs. 5,50,000.00 from the respondent- Delhi Financial Corporation against security and the plant and machinery of the petitioner was mortgaged to the respondent pursuant to a mortgage deed executed on 23rd December 1974. Since the petitioner company failed to repay the loan, in the year 1979 the respondent-corporation filed a suit under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act 1951 against the petitioner company. A decree was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on 12th October 1981 in favor of the respondent-corporation for the recovery of Rs. 8,47,175.87 with interest @ 14% p.a. till realisation. The respondent- corporation was also permitted to sell that plant and machinery for realisation of the said decretal amount. When the execution proceedings were initiated by the respondent-corporation, objections were filed by the petitioner company under Orde...
Savitri Devi and ors. Vs. Kailash Chopra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1419; 32(1987)DLT52
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Smt. Savitri Devi and her three sons are not satisfied with the order dated 1-7-1983 passed by Shri J.K. Pali, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by which they Along with their wives were summoned to face charge for the offences under Sections 147/452/323/149 Indian Penal Code . In order to understand the scope of attack, it is relevant to keep in mind few salient features of the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded therein.(2) Smt. Kailash Chopra, complainant is the wife of Jatinder Pal Chopra. He is the son of Smt. Savitri Devi and brother of Manmohan, Jagdish and Dalip. Yash Pal Duggal is his brother-in-law. Who is married to Smt. Swam Lata, their sister. On 22-4-83, Smt. Kailash Chopra lodged a complaint in the court of Shri J.K. Pali, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on the allegations that she aloag with her husband and other members of the family has been living in house no. D-1/206, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Her husband and one of his brothers S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chet Ram and Sons.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Del)188; [1988]174ITR177(Delhi)
1. These two applications in respect of a consolidated order by the Tribunal on an appeal in ITC No. 158 of 1986 can be taken as the reference arising from the cross-objection. 2. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the written submissions made on behalf of the respondent-assessed, we think that a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We, thereforee, direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law for the decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not-valid ?' ITC No. 158 of 1986 is disposed of. 3. No separate reference need be directed in ITC No. 163 of 1986 as this application has been filed only as a matter of precaution as the assessed had also filed a cross objection before the Tribunal. ITC No. 163 of 1986 is disposed of One statement o...
Prasad Productions (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT463TriDel
1. Prasad Productions Pvt. Ltd. has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. C3/134/85, dated 28-8-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Prasad Productions Pvt. Ltd. had imported a 70 mm Cinematographic Camera vide Bill of Entry No. 123 dated 3rd March, 1980. The imported goods were assessed to duty under Heading 90.08(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and countervailing duty was levied under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. A notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued for the short levy of the countervailing duty on the ground that C.V. duty was leviable under Tariff Item 37C of the CET, at the rate of 20%. Vide notice dated 26th August, 1980 the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras demanded Rs. 50,502.98 due to the short levy of duty. The demand was confirmed by an order dated 17th June, 1981. Being aggrieved from die aforesaid order the appellant had filed an appeal to t...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC102
1. The present matter arises from a notice issued by the Government of India Under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 calling upon respondents to show cause as to why the order-in-appeal No. 45-B/80 dated 25-1-80 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs should not be set aside, as the Central Government was of the tentative view that the said order-in-appeal was not proper, legal and correct. On the setting up of this Tribunal, the matter is transferred here and is being treated as an appeal of the department before us against the above cited orders of the Board.2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents manufacture inter alia telephone systems which have been named as MAX 1, II and III having 1000, between 600 and 1000, and less than 600 lines. These systems were admittedly purchased not only by Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department for installation of small telephone Exchanges but also by private parties such as factories and other offices for ...
Peico Electronics and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT745TriDel
1. The short question involed in this appeal is whether the consignment of ceramic tubes imported by the appellants was correctly classifiable under Heading No. 69.03 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as claimed by the appellants or under Heading No. 69.10/14 as assessed by the Customs Authorities. By the impugned order dated 30-12-1982, the Collector of Customs (A), Bombay dismissed the claim of the appellants on the ground that they had not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim that the ceramic tubes in question were refractory tubes.2. In the memo. of appeal preferred before us, it is stated that these tubes are stoppers and should prevent any static charge conduction from pointer to other parts of the meters and the tubes are of very minute size and should possess dimensional consistency. They have enclosed photostat copies of certain pages of what is purported to be the catalogue concerning the subject goods.3. The appellants did not appear before...
Novoimpex and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC141
1. Since a common question is involved in the subject three appeals, a common order is being passed.2. Question involved is whether the zip fasteners of specified lengths (5 to 10 inches) are covered by the following expression in S.No. 12 of the table to exemption Notification 29/79-Cus., dated 10-2-1979:- (2) Extracts from a book titled "Text Book of Footwear Manufacture' by J.H. Thornton. (3) A certificate dated 8-5-1979 issued by officiating Regional Officer of the Export Promotion Council for Finished Leather and Leather Manufacturers (sponsored by Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India).4. Learned Consultant, Shri N.C. Sogani appearing for the appellants has submitted that the zip fasteners imported are undoubtedly used in leather industry and as embellishment for footwears. These are similar to buckles both in function/utility and embellishment. Since the expression used in S.No. 12 of the table of notification 29/79 "and other" is preceded by the word 'buckle', the other embelli...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC539Tri(Delhi)
1. The applicant-Collector has raised the following questions of law arising out of Tribunal's Order No. A-504/86-NRB and Misc. 237/86-NRB dated 30.9.1986 in Appeal No. E/1385/84-NRB and Order No. A/519/86-NRB and Misc. 242/86-NRB dated 30.9.1986 in A. No ED/SB/1386/84-NRB: (i) Whether destruction of excisable goods without the permission of the competent Central Excise authorities and fulfilment of conditions as might have been imposed by the Collector of Central Excise by order in writing under Rule 49(i) but with the permission of the U.P. Excise authorities can be called a violation of technical nature, consequently setting aside the demand of duty and reduction in penalty when the Rule 49 permits remission of duty only when the manufacturer claim their goods as unfit for consumption or for marketing before the proper Central Excise officers and subject to other condition as may be imposed by the Collector Central Excise by order in writing. (ii) Whether remission of duty under ru...
David Shrieves Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD214(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi, dated 26-2-1985 relating to the assessment year 1981-82. In the first ground the grievance projected by the assessee is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine. This grievance is based upon very interesting set of facts, which must be recorded in order to get full appreciation of the case of the assessee.2. One, Mr. David Jude., Shrieves was an employee of Redifon Simulation Ltd., United Kingdom. The said employer deputed him as resident site engineer to work at Indian Naval Dockyard at Bombay from 11-5-1980 to 31-3-1981. The contract of this service of the foreign technician was approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi vide their letter dated 3-3-1981 in terms of Section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He performed stipulated services and received the recompense therefor. ...
Hara Singh and ors. Vs. Mewa Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: I(1987)ACC421
S.B. Wad, J.1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation arises out of the claim petition filed by Hara Singh and his wife Smt. Ram Rakhi on the death of their son Jang Bahadur who died in a road accident on 30-10-1972. The claimants had claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. However, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 14,600/- During the pendency of the petition before the Tribunal Smt. Ram Rakhi died and her legal heirs were brought on record.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that only those legal heirs who are recognised by the Hindu Succession Act will be entitled to get the compensation. The Tribunal then held that mother was a class I heir and, thereforee, excluded father who is not a class I heir. No compensation was awarded to the father.3. The Tribunal has gravely erred in mis-reading the Division Bench judgment of this court reported in Dewan Hart Chand and Ors. v. Municipal Committee of Delhi and Ors. AIR 1981 Del 71. In that case the father, the brothers and the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »