Delhi Court June 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.
Bimetal Bearings Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT379TriDel
1. During the course of a visit by the jurisdiction Supdt. of the factory of the appellants M/s. Bimetal Bearings Ltd. it was found that they were manufacturing what were described as aside cutter knives, front cutter knives and scrap cutting punches. A total of 49 Nos. of these articles had been manufactured during the period, 18-6-1977 to 2-1-1981. Of them 13 had been already captively consumed and the remaining 36 were in stock. The Supdt. was of opinion that these articles fell under TI 51-A(iv) CET and since they had been manufactured without taking out a proper Central Excise licence therefor, and had been cleared without payment of duty thereon, the appellants had contravened the relevant statutory provisions. The stock on hand was accordingly seized and notice dated 19-5-1981 was issued.After receipt of reply and on adjudication the Assistant Collector held under his order dated 22-12-1981 that the articles were classifiable under TI 61-A (iv) CET and therefore the charges wer...
Southern Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT149TriDel
1. When these two matters were placed before the Bench, the Bench noted that there were no signatures on the papers purporting to be appeals.There are, therefore, no appeals before us to hear.2. The Registry may return the papers to the persons who filed them, and close the list....
Super Printers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC707Tri(Delhi)
1. Show Cause notice dated 27-2-1985 was sent to the appellants M/s Super Printers with reference to the manufacturing activity carried on by them under an agreement with M/s I.T.C. It was mentioned in the notice that out of raw material supplied by M/s ITC the appellants were manufacturing slides (for cigarette boxes) falling under T.I. 68 CET, but that they had not taken out a licence therefor. They were directed to show cause why they should not be called upon to take out a licence and file classification list as also price list. They were also called upon to show cause why exemption claimed by them in terms of notification No. 77/83 as amended should not be denied since the slides were manufactured by the appellants on behalf of M/s ITC who were not eligible for any such exemption. On the above premises they were further called upon to show cause why an amount of Rs. 98,400.29P should not be demanded as duty from them in respect of slides manufactured and cleared during the period...
Raman Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ31
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 30th May 1986 passed by Shriubhash Wason, then Chief Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the prayer of the petitioners for releasing the various properties and bank accounts was declined. Petitioners Raman Kumar and Madan Kumar are brothers and Smt. Raj Rani is their mother.(2) The C.B.I, registered a case as Fir 1/86 under Sections 420/467/ 468/471 and Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 16-1-1986 on the allegations that the petitioner Raman Kumar in conspiracy with his brother Chaman Kumar conspired to cheat State Bank of India. The C.B.I. (Banking Division) registered another case as R.C. 2/1986 on 28-1-1986 for offences under Sections 120-B/420/467/471/477A and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegations that the petitioner Raman Kumar also conspired with Vipin Kumar during the same period and in pursuance of that conspiracy near...
Ram Sarup Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT329
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) The deceased Smt. Rumali (M, Roopmati was the daughter of Ram Sarup petitioner and she was married to Chhatarpal respondent no. 7 on 6.3.1987. As per custom prevailing in the petitioner's region a ceremony called 'Gauna' takes place after the marriage and according to that custom the bride is taken to the matrimonial home after the 'Gauna'ceremony. In the case of the deceased she was sent only for three days to stay in her husband's house after the marriage and thereafter she was brought back to her parents' house in order that she could be sent to the matrimonial home ceremoniously after the Gauna. The Gauna ceremony took place on 19.4.1987 and it was after that ceremony that the deceased was taken to the matrimonial home on that very day by her husband Chhatarpal around9.00 P.M. after the Gauna ceremony. The house of the husband being premisesNo. X-520, J.J. Colony, Mangolpuri, Delhi comprised only one room tenement of 25 sq. yds. and it comprised of one room wi...
Kuldip Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi327
ORDER'. Rule 14 of the Karnataka State (Transactions of Business) Rules, 1977 lays down that the Minister In-charge shall be primarily responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to his department. Rule 19 of the said Rules provides as to how the orders of the Governor are to be- communicated. This rule reads as under : '19(1)Orders and instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, shall be authenticated by the signature of a Secretary, an Additional Secretary, a Special Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, an Under Secretary, or by such other officer as may be specially empowered in that behalf by the Governor in the manner specified below, and such signature shall be deemed to be the proper authentication of such order or instrument :- By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka. (Signature) Name and designation of the Officer authorised to sign.' This procedure appears to. have been meticulously followed in the case of the...
Vikas Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT229; 1987RLR377
S.B. Wad, J.(1) Our task in these writ petitions is rendered easier by Union of India admitting through its counter-affidavit that no norms or guidelines were followed while making the impugned allotments. In these days of rumors and alleged scandals the forth night stand taken by Union of India is singularly welcome. Admission of a mistake creates hope for future. It has freshness of Rajnigandha as the name of one of the petitioner societies suggests.(2) There is prime land, about 70 acres, in the heart of South Delhi,covering part of Andrews Ganj and Sadiq Nagar. About 27 acres of land are allotted by the Union of India to nine respondent Cooperative Group Housing Societies on 31.3.1986. Within short period of about eight-ten days the allotment letters were sent, the premium amount was paid and physical possession was given to the Societies. These petitions, filed by the other Cooperative Societies challenge legality and propriety of the allotments of the nine societies.Apart from Un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›