Delhi Court August 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.
Union of India Vs. Kameshwar Dubey and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT143; (1988)IILLJ302Del
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) Rule D.B. Respondent No. 1 Kaineshwar Dubey (hereinafter to be referred to as 'workman') was a railway employee employed as Khalasi (casual labour) with effect from 20-12-1969 and was dismissed from service by an oral order dated 29-5-1974. He brought a suit being Suit No. 233 of 1975 against the petitioner Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi for a declaration that his dismissal was illegal, void, inoperative, mala fide and a nullity and that he continued to be in service of the railway as. if he was not dismissed at all and was further entitled to all other benefits of the service. The decree for the aforesaid declaration was granted on 13-10-1981 by Shri Z. S. Lohat, Sub Judge 1st Class as a result of which his dismissal from service was held as void and was further-held to have continued in service and also entitled to all the service benefits. This decree was passed after contest by the petitioner (2) The firs...
Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC146(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The main question for determination in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the steel flanges manufactured by the appellants are classifiable for payment of excise duty under tariff item No. 26AA(ia) or under item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 or both. Briefly, the relevant facts are as follows:2. The appellant company manufactures a number of steel products by forging process. The process of manufacture of their forged products consists of cutting of steel, pre-heating it, heating and beating of steel material till the final shape nearest to the shape desired by the customer and/or specifications is achieved. Thereafter, the extra/unwanted material is removed by either trimming or by gas cutting or by skin cutting and/or by rough machining, to achieve the shape and section nearest to the forged steel product required by the customers. These 'shapes and sections' are subjected to further processes of polishing and drilling, ...
Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC542Tri(Delhi)
1. When this matter was taken up on 6-7-1987, the appellants were not represented in the Court. Since there was no communication from them in response to the notice of hearing, it was decided to proceed with the hearing. We have, accordingly, heard Shri K.C. Sachar, Departmental Representative for the respondent and perused the record.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics classifiable under Items Nos. 19 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Schedule is hereinafter referred to as the "CET"). They filed a classification list dated 31-10-1979 in respect of Sort No. 600010 - fabrics described as polyester cotton warp voil containing 54% polyester and 46% cotton at grey stage and 100% polyester after processing. The appellants claimed classification of the goods under Item No. 22(1) of the CET. However, the Assistant Collector, under his order dated 11-3-...
Orissa Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC223Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in h appeal is interpretation of the word 'small' used in Chapter Note 3 (C) of Chapter 25 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 hereinafter: called 'Customs Tariffallied question is what quantity or percentage content of other oxides in the present case Chromium Oxide CraO8 would dis-entitle the goods imported by the appellants to classification as dead burnt (sintered) magnesite or magnesia hereinafter called (DBM) under Heading 25.01/32 of the Customs Tariff read with Exemption Notification No. 80-Cus. dated 1.3.1982 as subsequently amended by Notifications No. 115/83-Cus dated 30.4.1983. No. 155/83 dated 27.5.1983 and No. 114/84 dated 26.4.1984, Further question is whether the goods imported are classifiable under Heading 25.01/32 of Customs Tariff or Heading 38.01/19 as Misc.Chemical products 2. Though not very material, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta in his order describes the imports as follows : Importation of Britmag 88% Mgo (1) Per S....
Jiyajee Rao Cotton Mills and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC748Tri(Delhi)
1. First, we shall deal with the appeals filed by M/s. Jiyajee Rao Cotton Mills. At the outset, arguments were heard from Shri S.P.Kampani and Shri K.C. Sachar in respect of delay in preferment of the Appeal No. 990/83. The delay is partly explained as due to the misplacement of the impugned order and partly due to the absence owing to illness of the official concerned. Though Shri Sachar opposed the request for condonation, we were of the opinion that, in the circumstances explained, the delay ought to be condoned. Insofar as the supplementary appeals concerning this appeal as well as Appeal No.606/83-D, these were occasioned by the requirements of the Tribunal and, therefore, the delay in filing these supplementary appeals was also condoned by us.2. The issue involved in all these appeals is common and these appeals were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order.3. The appellants are a composite unit engaged in spinning cotton yarn and weaving cotton ...
Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT462TriDel
1. In this appeal the point involved is the as sessment of goods imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry Cash No. HD-2227, dated 27-5-1983. The goods are stated to be parts of electrical line telephone apparatus imported by the appellants, M/s. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. for the installation of a 30000 line Telephone Exchange at Rai Bareily. Shri D'Costa for the appellants sub mitted that the parts were imported in SKD/CKD condition and all the parts constituted a Telephone Exchange.2. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim for re-classification under Heading 85.13 CTA, and for consequential refund on the ground that the goods are "various spares charaged separately". Shri D'Costa submitted that the imported goods are not parts but a full Telephone Exchange in CKD/SKD condition.3. Shri J. Gopinath, Ld. SDR submitted that if the appellants can prove that the imported goods are a Telephone Exchange in SKD/CKD condition, there would be a case for classification under Headin...
Kothari Chemicals and Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT560TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Calcutta.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured vanadium pentaoxide and one of the raw material used for the same was vanadium sludge. Vanadium pentaoxide and Vanadium Sludge both fall under T.1.68 CET. As seen from the paper book filed by the appellants, the appellants addressed letter dated 17-10-1979 to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gaya, wherein they give list of the goods manufactured by them and also raw material inputs required for the same and requested the Assistant Collector to grant them necessary permission for availing of facility under Rule 56A. Among the various items of inputs listed by them, Vanadium Sludge was one such item. All the items the appellants were manufacturing as indicated in the letter fell under Item 68. The appellants have filed a copy of a communication from the Central Excise, which does not appear to be from the Assistant Collector. ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Karimi Litho Press
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC36
1. There is a telegraphic request for adjournment from Shri Krishnamurthy, respondents' advocate on the ground of sudden illness.In view of what follows we have not considered it necessary to accept this request and proceed to dispose of these appeals on merits.3. The issue for decision in these appeals is classification for the purpose of Basic Customs duty on Cartridge Paper of size 22" x 33" and of substance 150 Grams per Sq. Mtr. While the importer claims classification under Heading 48.01/21(3) (other than printing and writing paper) of CTA, the Revenue at the time of import has assessed it under sub-heading (1) (not elsewhere specified) ibid. In appeal, however, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay relying on ISI-4661 of 1968 accepted the respondent's (appellants before him) claim for classification under sub-heading (3) considering it more appropriate and allowed the appeal. It is this order which is challenged before us by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.4. From ...
Hakim Sayed HussaIn Vs. V.K. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT203; 1987(13)DRJ295
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6th March, 1986 whereby the Sub-Judge, Delhi allowed an application under Order 47 passed by respondent No. 3 and set-aside the judgment and decree dated 12th April, 1985.(2) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the properly being Plot No. 268, opposite Bangle Wali Masjid, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi measuring about 50 sq. metres. This suit was filed against Israr Ahmed who was the father of respondent No. 2 Irfan Ahmed. The said suit, which was filed on or about 7th December, 1973 was compromised on 21st July, 1977. By virtue of the compromise Israr Ahmed admitted himself to be a tenant of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month and also admitted his liability to pay rent of Rs. 540.00 .(3) Israr Ahmed did not make the payment in terms of the compromise dated 21st July, 1977. Thereafter the petitioner, on or about 19/20th D...
Om Prakash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes279; 33(1987)DLT128
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Kumari Rajni, the prosecutrix in this case is aged about 7 years. She was living with her father Padam Singh in a house adjoining to the house of the accused Om Parkash. As the story goes, on 11.3.1985 at about 8.30 P.M., Rajni was playing outside her house. The accused lured her away to show the television. On that pretext, she was taken to a lonely place. The accused removed his pant as well as the underwear. Seeing this Rajni started weeping. The accused asked her to keep quiet but she did not. Apprehending detection, 0m Parkash lifted a stone lying nearby and hit her on her head. She started bleeding and fell unconscious. After sometime Ram Dass, Public Witness lifted Rajni and brought her in an injured condition to her house. Puran Singh, the maternal uncle of Padam Singh (father of Rajni) made enquiries and reached Om Parkash. 0m Parkash on hearing the complaint ran away from his house. Rajni was immediately taken to Dr. R.K. Sippy, where her injuries were att...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »