Delhi Court July 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.
Gloria Chemicals Vs. R.K. Cables and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi213; 1988(14)DRJ39
A.B. Saharya, J.(1) By these applications defendants 1, 2 and 3 have prayed that their earlier application registered as I.A. 3895 of 86 under Order Ix Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex parte decree dated 30th April, 1986, which was dismissed on 24th July 1986, be restored and the delay in applying for it be condoned.(2) In the suit a decree was sought against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,35,000 with interest and costs.(3) Defendant No. I is a partnership firm. Defendants 2 and 3 axe brothers. They and defendant No. 4 are partners of the firm. The defendants were duly served with summons in the suit. Mr. B.L. Gupta Advocate, appeared on behalf of all the defendants on 10th January 1986. He sought adjournment to file written statement and reply to application of the Plaintiff for interim orders. On the next date of hearing on 12th February 1986, Mr. Gupta stated that he was appearing only for defendants 2 and 3. Since the other two defendants had earlier been se...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Del)113; [1988]172ITR390(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. Four questions are sought to be got referred to this court under Section 256(2), Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to an order passed by the Tribunal in the case of the respondent-assessed for the assessment year 1975-76.2. The first question of which reference is sought reads as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in restoring to the file of the Income-tax Officer the matter relating to the admissibility of depreciation allowance on the assets used for scientific research when the Income-tax Officer had made no disallowance on the basis of the amended provisions of Section 35(2)(iv) referred to by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ?'3. We find that so far as this point is concerned, the Tribunal has simply remanded the matter to the Income-tax Officer for being decided according to law after the decision of the Supreme Court in a writ petition filedby the assesses challenging the vi...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1987
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT300TriDel
1. This order is made by us in compliance with the direction dated 24-6-1986 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in writ petition No. 1202 of 1980 which had been filed by the respondents against the order-in-revision No. 119 of 1979, dated 17-2-79 passed by the Government of India pursuant to the aforesaid revision show cause notice. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Government of India's order-in-revision and directed this Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the Supreme Court judgments relating to the concept of 'related person' under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. During the hearing today, the learned representative of the department maintained that the main dealers of the respondents were related persons because of the terms of the agreement entered into between the respondents and the main dealers. We re-produce below from the revision show cause notice the substance of the particular provisions of the ...
Krishana and Co. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC135(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the orders of the Government of India by which confiscation of the Ball Bearings imported by the Petitioners had been ordered though, in lieu of confiscation, option was given to the petitioners to clear the goods on Payment of fine of Rs. 50.000/-.2. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. had obtained a license for the import from Bulgaria of 'Non-Restricted Types of Ball Bearings of an approximate value of Rs. 2,00,000/-. A letter of authority was endorsed by the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. in favor of the petitioners authorising the petitioners to import the permissible goods.3. On the basis of the aforesaid letter of authority and the license the petitioners imported Bulgarian Ball Bearing Type No. 203. The goods arrived at the Calcutta Port and the Customs Authorities were of the opinion that the clearance of the same was not permissible in view of the import policy for the year 1968-69. According to the ...
Steel Authority of India Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT262TriDel
1. The question that arises in this appeal, originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government is whether "System flow regulating valve" should be classified under Sub-item (1) or (2) of heading 84.61 CTA. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal because the imported article did not fit into any of the descriptions given in the heading 84.61 (2) CTA.2. Even before us, there is no evidence to show that the imported article is any of those mentioned in Sub-heading (2) of 84.61. We, thereore, do not see any reason to interfere with impugned order. We dismiss the appeal....
Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT719TriDel
1. These two appeals were heard together as they are against the same Order-in-Original.2. After hearing both parties we had announced that the appeals were being allowed and the impugned order set aside, the matter being remitted to the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut for re-adjudication. We had announced that detailed order will be issued later. This is the order giving the reasons. In view of the reasons for which the appeals were being allowed, and remitted for re-adjudication, it is unnecessary to state the facts in great detail.3. Shri A.N. Haksar, Advocate for the appellants in Appeal No. 225/83 (M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd.) as well as Shri R.H. Bajoria, Advocate for the appellants in Appeal No. 511/83 (M/s. Eastern Spg. Mills and Industries Ltd.) submitted that the order of the Collector needs to be set aside for the reason that principles of natural justice had been violated and that therefore they would make their submissions on that question in the first instance. We hea...
Punjab Con-cast Steels Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC189
1. The dispute in this appeal is on classification of certain ladle equipment, imported by the appellants, for the purpose of levy of customs duty.2. The appellants submitted before us during the hearing that a ladle consisted of 12 parts out of which they imported 10 parts in unassembled condition. The remaining two parts - the vessel and piping - were procured by them locally. They stated that the vlaue of these two parts procured locally was about 2% of the value of the total ladle equipment. Relying on the affidavit dated 6-6-1984 of Dr. V.D. Sehgal, a Metallurgist, the appellants contended that the equipment imported by them, 'though incomplete to form a complete ladle, had collectively acquired the essential character of a vacuum degassing ladle as that expression was understood in the Metallurgical trade. The appellants prayed that the entire equipment as imported by them should be assessed under Heading 84.43 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.3. We find from the record that out ...
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Janakiramaiah
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT36
Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi where by its first appeal against the dismissal of the suit was also dismissed.(2) The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that it is having Guest House run by it at I, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. The defendant who was in the service of the Andhra Pradesh Government was transferred and posted as an Accountant at Delhi on 1.8. 1966 and was allotted Maiz Khana Mubarak which is a part of the Guest House free of rent. The defendant retired on7.3.1970. He was, however, reappointed and finally retired on 30.4.1971.A notice was given to the defendant to vacate the rent free accommodation allotted to him but he failed to vacate the premises leading to the filing of the suit.(3) The plaintiff has also claimed possession and mesne profits.(4) The case of the defendant as pleaded in the written statement is that the premises known ...
M.G. Aggarwal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT394
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) In this writ petition notice to show cause was issued on 22/01/1987. An affidavit showing cause has been filed, and with the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of by this order.(2) The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as a Junior Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi w.e.f. 12/03/1984 vide annexure P. 3. After joining Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was posted in the City Zone. that is to say an area with respect to old Delhi. The petitioner says that his services were terminated by an order dated 24/07/1986(annexure P. 1), and an appeal there from was disposed of by anon-speaking order dated 18/11/1986, which is annexure P. 2. The petitioner saysthat the reason for dismissal was that it was alleged against him that in HouseNo. 2434, Chhipiwara Kalan, Delhi, which property fell within his jurisdictions Junior Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, some internal structural alterations were made between 1970 and 1984....
Navjivan Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Delhi Co-operati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi323
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) Navjivan Cooperative House-Building Society Ltd. has filed his writ petition against an order passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in an appeal No. 46/1585/78/H Commissioner of Income Tax /876 dated 20-7-1984. . (2) The case of the petitioner is that it is a society which, was originally registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, as extended to Delhi. On coming into force the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, it become a Society under that Act. it is the case of the petitioner Society was formed in the year 1956 with the object, inter alias of acquir. ing land for housing for its members. It is not petitioner Society that respondent No. 3 of its founder members who had formed the on 4th August, 1956 as one of its founder members. He was also a member of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society. It is further the case of the petitioner Society that respondent No. 3 had deposited on 19th February', 1963 a sum of Rs. 8,000.00 towards l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »