Delhi Court January 1988 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.
Nanak Chand Vs. Shanti Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT170
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 16th April 1986 in eviction case no. 190/79. (2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The respondent Smt. Shanti Gupta filed a petition for eviction against one Shri Babu Ram in respect of property no. 2695, Chowk Raiji, Roshanpura, Nai Sarak, Delhi under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act. During the pendency of the eviction petition Shri Babu Ram died leaving behind the petitioner, Smt. Savitri Devi, Smt. Lakshmi and Smt. Gomit. thereforee, on an application made by the respondent under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Additional Rent Controller substituted these persons in place of late Shri Babu Ram. (3) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the premises were let out t...
A.K. Sukheja Vs. Indian Institute of Technology and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi578
N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 28th July, 1988 whereby respondent No. 3 Mrs. Krishna Devi Yadav has been appointed as the Acting Head Mistress in place of the petitioner. (2) Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 1 opened a Nursery School sometime in the year 1967. One Mrs. U. Banerji was appointed as its Head Mistress. According to the respondents the Head Mistress had bean provided by N.C.E.R.T. The case of the petitioner is that on 26th February, 1970' the selection committee recommended four persons for appointment to the post. of Nursery Teachers at the initial starting salary of Rs. 126 p.m. The name of the petitioner was at Seriall No. 3 and that of the respondent No. 3 was placed at Seriall No. 4. The first two candidates who were selected did not join and the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 joined the said Nursery School. It is an admitted case that the name of the petitioner was placed above that of respondent No. 3 in th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Auxichem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC308Tri(Delhi)
This five member bench was specially constituted to hear these cases, as the normal bench C thought that there were contradictions in a few previous decisions on the subject.1. Before this appeal was heard, M/s. Hico Products wanted to intervene as they said they were interested in the proceedings. The bench, however, did not allow their intervention.2. According to the Appellate Collector, M/s. Auxichem, the asses-sees, manufacture (1) silicone AU 331, (2) auxichem 831 and (3) silicone softener 662 which were classified under central excise tariff item 15AA before 28.2.1982. After the amendment of this item in the 1982-83 budget, the department came to the view that as the said products were based on silicone, they should be classified under 15A(1). A notice of demand was issued in August, 1982 to recover duty from the assessee on clearances from 28.2.1982 to 31.7.1982. The Assistant Collector decided that the goods were classifiable under 15A(1), and he required the assessees to pay...
Rathi Ispat Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC62
1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether duty paid on Cast Iron moulds under Central Excise Tariff Item 68 would be allowed to be set off under Notification 201/79, dated 4.6.1979 even if the cast iron moulds had been used for the purpose of moulding and scrapped after such use. These scrapped cast iron moulds are used in the manufacture of steel ingots by the appellants.2. Lower authorities below have held that such set off duty is not available in terms of Section 201/79 on the ground that what is being used by the appellants in the manufacture of steel ingots is not new cast iron moulds; but only a scrap; such cast iron moulds after having been scrapped do not continue to fall any longer under Tariff Item 68, but they fall under Tariff Item 26.The appellant on the other hand contends that scrapped cast iron moulds continued to remain cast iron moulds falling under Tariff Item 68 and therefore, duty paid on such cast iron moulds is entitled to be set off against the duty...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Telco Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC244
1. The facts of 'the case, briefly stated, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. They had been permitted by the Central Excise authorities at Jamshedpur to procure from Madras, Nasik and Rajkot, fasteners in terms of the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). It appears that the Excise authorities at these three places had assessed the goods in dispute, namely, fasteners for motor vehicles, under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET, for short) at 8% ad valorem. It further appears that, at some stage, the Central Excise authorities at Jamshedpur considered that some of these fasteners which had been classified under Item No. 68, CET, by the Excise authorities at Madras, Nasik and Rajkot were really not such as could be considered as parts of motor vehicles but only as fasteners attracting classification under Item No. 52, CET. On this basis, the Superintendent of ...
Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT239TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture branded chewing tobacco, an excisable item. Prior to their incorporation on 12.8.1985, they were a partnership firm. Another partnership firm, M/s. Ratna Zarda Supply Company, were their sole selling agents/distributors. The two firms had no common partners. But 7 (out of 11) partners of Ratna were related to one or the other of 8 (out of 9) partners of Prabhat. The main point of dispute to be decided in this appeal is whether Ratna was a 'related person' of Prabhat within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. If the answer to this question is in negative, the other point to be looked into is whether Ratna was really a consignment agent of Prabhat, working on commission agency basis. The period of the controversy started from 1.10.1975, the date on which the new Section 4 of the Act with its concept of 'related person' came into force.2. The legislative provision in the new Section 4(4)(c) on 'related person' read as un...
Cox and Kings Agents Ltd. and anr. Vs. Chander Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT107; 1988(15)DRJ268; 1988RLR540
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been brought against the judgment dated 5th August, 1985 of Shri M.A. Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, by which be dismissed the appeal brought by the appellants against an eviction order dated 21st February, 1985 of Shri A.K. Garg, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, made on the ground of eviction covered by clause (b) of Section 14(1) of the Act. (2) Smt. Jagdish Rani, previous owner/landlady, of the demised premises, which is a godown in property No. 3507, Rashid Manzil, Mori Gate, Delhi, had filed an eviction petition on the ground of eviction covered by clauses (c), (f) and (j) of Section 14(1) of the Act but later on during the pendency of the eviction case, the respondent had purchased this property and was substituted in place of Smt. Jagdish Rani, as petitioner and by amendment of the eviction petition the ground of eviction covered by clause (b) wa...
Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT335
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) This petitioner was detained pursuant to his detention order dated 14th January, 1987 passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activites Act of 19/4. The detention order was passed with a view to prevent the petitioner from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods and also in dealing with foreign marked gold. The order of detention followed an incident dated 21st November, 1986 when the petitioner was caught in the process of smuggling of foreign marked gold. The petitioner was arrested on the same day according to though according to the respondents, the petitioner was arrested on 23rd November, 1986 and then remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter he was repeatedly remanded to judicial custody and ultimately he was sent to judicial lock up till 19th January, 1987. The petitioner bad not applied for bail. It is admitted that on the da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›