Delhi Court November 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.
D.T.C. and anr. Vs. Rattan Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: I(1989)ACC185
S.B. Wad, J.1. The accident took place on 29-9-1967. The Tribunal has found on evidence that the two vehicles DLK 1348 and DLP 1096 were responsible for the accident and the eventual death of Shri Harish Pal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000/- as compensation. The claim was preferred by the father, the mother and the grandfather of the deceased. The mother and the grandfather have died during the pendency of this appeal. The father is alive and is 77 years old. I have been taken through the evidence and I am satisfied with the Tribunal's finding that both the vehicles mentioned were responsible for causing the accident. I also agree with the Tribunal that the liability of the two vehicles would be half and half. Vehicle No. DLK 1348 was insured with the Commonwealth Assurance Company Limited, now known as M/s. New India Assurance Company.2. The D.T.C., to whom vehicle No. DLP 1096 belonged, has filed the present appeal, disowning their responsibility in the matter. I am sat...
Associated Pigments Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC163Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s Associated Pigments Ltd., Calcutta had filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. 297/Cal-II/85 dated the 3rd day of January, 1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing Red lead, white lead and Zinc Oxide falling under Tariff Item 14 and lead sub-oxide and litharge falling under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants sell their products in the course of wholesale trade from their sales office/depots situated at Calcutta, Delhi, Bangalore and Kanpur. The prices charged by the appellants from their customers include, inter alia, the price of the goods, the cost of transportation from the factory gate to the depots and from the depots to the customers' place, transit insurance, octroi and taxes and duties including local taxes etc. The appellants originally submitted two price lists in Part-I dated 18-7-79 effective from 20-7-79 showing different prices f...
Panyam Cements and Mineral Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC276
1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether Calcium Carbide manufactured by the appellants and used by them in the manufacture of acetylene black is liable to Central Excise duty under Item 14AA of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The process of manufacture of calcium carbide by the appellants as described by the Assistant Collector of Customs & Central Excise in the order-in-original is as follows : "The raw material for the manufacture of Calcium Carbide is lime stone. The lime stone is first crushed into required size and burnt in oil furnace to get calcinated lime. This calcinated lime is added to required quantity of charcoal and fed to electric furnance where it is burnt at a temperature ranging from 2200 C to 2500 C. Then a liquid is obtained which is tapped from the furnance into trays which are mounted on wheels. The molten liquid is allowed to be air-cooled. The material obtained is Calcium Carbide in boulder (lump) form. This is taken to iron platform where it is ha...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC174Tri(Delhi)
1. All the four captioned appeals are directed against the impugned orders passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Appeal No. E/2227/87-C : M/s. National Fertilizers Limited, the respondent herein obtained licence in Form L-6, No. 1 on 2.2.1977 for bringing into their factory Furnace Oil under Item 10 of the Central Excise Tariff, at Nil rate of duty under the provisions of Notification No. 147/74-C.E., dated 30.10.1974 for using the same as Teed Stock" in the manufacture of Fertilizer as also at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 195/76-C.E., dated 10.6.1976 for use otherwise than as "Feed Stock" in the manufacture of fertilizers. It was the case of the department that the respondent under their aforesaid L-6 licence brought into their premises 2532.569 Kilolitres of furnace oil during the period from 1.10.1977 to 31.12.1977 free of duty for use as "Feed Stock" in the manufacture of Urea Fertilizer. But out of the said quantity of fur...
C.C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Prestressed Control
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT358TriDel
The impugned order was served on the appellant-Collector on 25-8-1983. The last date for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was 25-11-1983 (the applicant wrongly states it as 24-11-1983). The appeal has, however, been filed on 25-1-1984. Filing of the appeal was, therefore, delayed by two months. The only ground for late filing of the appeal as stated in the application is that the opinion of the concerned Assistant Collector was received in the office of the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur (appellant) on 30-12-1983. The Assistant Collector was of the view that it was merely a technical lapse. The appellant Collector, however, feels that the issue involved in the impugned order is a substantive point of law. In these circumstances, it has been prayed that the delay of two months be condoned.2. The learned SDR has reiterated the aforesaid ground mentioned in the application.3. Opposing the contention, the learned consultant, Shri S.L. Chopra has stated that no adequate reason ha...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bharat Laundry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT676TriDel
1. The respondents were processors of cotton fabrics. During the period 18-6-1977 to July 79 they received "Round Mesh Mosquito Netting Cloth" (herein after to be referred to as mosquito netting) for processing.According to the Asstt. Collector's order the cloth after processing was meant mainly for supply to the Defence Department of the Government of India. The respondents were to clear the cloth after payment of duty. They filed classification list for the mosquito netting classifying it under the category of cotton fabrics of average count below 41s, under Tariff Item 19(i), and claimed the concessional rate of duty prescribed by the Notification No. 226/77, dt. 15-7-1977. While approving this classification list there was a direction to the Supdt.of Central Excise to draw samples of the mosquito netting and to send the same to the Deputy Chief Chemist, Department of Central Excise, Bombay for ascertaining the exact average count of the said cloth. This was done and the Deputy Chi...
Shriram Smarak Nidhi Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)29ITD186(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assesses is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi dated 17-2-1988 relating to the assessment year 1984-85. In the appeal of the assessee, the issue which primarily needs our attention was crystallized in the Court as under: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-trust is not saved by the proviso to Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Before we come to grips with this issue, it would be beneficial to keep in focus the factual canvas of the case, which is as under.3. The assessee-trust is following calendar year as the previous year.It is common ground that for the previous years ending on 31-12-1972 and 31-12-1973, the assessee-trust held the following investments made out of its corpus:Sl. No. Accounting year Corpus funds Investment/Loans/Advances out of corpus funds 1. 31-12-1972 Rs. 7,81,728 M/s Jay Engg. Works Ltd. Rs. 7,30,000 2. 31-12-1973 Rs. 11,27,801 M/s Jay Engg. Works Ltd. Rs. 10,55,000....
Ram Nath Moga Vs. Siri Prakash JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT136
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This revision is of the order dated 14.7.87 of the learned sub-judge whereby he closed the evidence of the petitioner defendant in the suit. The petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking review of this order and stated that his counsel had noted a wrong date. He said be noted the next date as 14.8.87 instead of 14 7.87 The review application was also dismissed as the learned sub-judge was of the opinion that it did not fulfill the requisites of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) When this petition was filed there were certain objections like that all the parties in the trial court had not been imp leaded and certified copy of the impugned order dated 14.7.87 had not been filed. There was also an objection that the petitioner should have filed a petition, if be was so aggrieved, against the order dated 24.8.87 dismissing his review application. The last objection led to the filing of CM(M) 204/88. In the first petition Cr 91/88 the petitioner filed ...
Virendra Singh and Co. Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)ARBLR27(Delhi); 37(1989)DLT60
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) On 29th February. 1980 Central Warehousing Corporation (Corporation) entered into an agreement with the petitioner (contractor) for construction of 15000 metric tonnes capacity godowns with ancillaries at Central Warehouse, Ghaziabad (U.P.) The work was required to be completed as per terms of the agreement on 24th August, 1980. The work was declared as actually completed on 1st October, 1981. (2) Certain disputes arose between the contractor and the Corporation. The contract contained an arbitration clause. Disputes and differences between the parties were referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. B.S. Mathur. Admittedly, it was a term of the agreement that in all cases where a total amount of the award exceeds Rs. 50.000.00 the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award. On 10th August, 1984 Mr. B S. Mathur made and published his award. The award and the proceedings have been filed in this Court. The Corporation has filed objections to the award (1.A. 7339/84). O...
C. Lyall and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi352
Y. K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The petitioner (for short 'contractor') executed the work of strengthening of existing runway and construction of Taxi track and Apron at Bakshi-ka-Talab (Lucknow) pursuant to agreement No. 2/EE of 1962-63. As some disputes arose out of the said contract Mr. N. K. Aggarwal, respondent No. 2 was appointed as an arbitrator. The arbitrator made and published his award on 2nd February, 1971 awarding a sum of Rs. 7,12,459.97 to the contractor. The award and proceedings were filed in this Court and respondent No. I has filed objections challenging the award in respect of claims No. 2(i) to (v), ll(a) and (b) and 15 to the extent of Rs. 5,78,624.96 particulars whereof are as under:Claim No. No. 2(i) No. 2(ii), (ill), (iv) & (v) No. 11 (a) No. 11 (b) No. 15. The amount awarded. Rs. 1,22,626.00 Rs. 21,650.00 Rs. 11,500.00 Rs. 2,32 935.00 Rs. 1,89.913.00 Total: Rs. 5,78,624.96'(2) On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.1. Whether the objections are withi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »