Delhi Court May 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.
Subhash Chander Marwah Vs. Jagjit Singh Sood
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT258
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 18th November 1986. Briefly the facts are these :- A petition for eviction was filed by the landlord under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises in occupation of the tenant are bonafide required by the petitioner for himself and for his family members dependent on him. The case set up in the petition was that the petitioner is in occupation of a drawing-cum-dining room and two bed rooms with attached bath rooms and two verandahs and a kitchen on the ground floor of property No. E-150, Greater Kailash Part-1. New Delhi. It was claimed that the said accommodation was not sufficient to meet the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and his family members dependent upon him. The eviction petition was filed in February 1983. At the time of filing the eviction petition the a...
Capital Plastic Industries Vs. Kappy Plastic Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT202
C.L. Chaudbry, J. (1) By this suit the plaintiff claims perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in thermos jug under the trade mark Rahber or any other trade mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade mark RABBER. The allegations of the to plaintiff for claiming the perpetual injunction as laid down in the plaint are as follows :- (2) The plaintiff claims to have adopted a distinctive and celebrated trade mark Rabber in respect of the thermos jug and started using the trademark from 1.1.1983. An application for registration of the mark Rabber is claimed to have been filed on 20.5.1983 bearing No. 405743 by which the user is claimed to be from 1.1.1983. It is alleged that the plaintiff has acquired a good reputation in the mark because of high quality of goods manufactured by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also got registered the copyright in the artistic label of RABBER. The distinctive features of the t...
Singh Radio and Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC80Tri(Delhi)
1. Since both the appeals emerge from the same impugned order and as such are disposed of by this consolidated order. The appellants M/s.Singh Radio and Electronics had imported 140 packages vide Bill of Entry No. 50020 dated 15-12-1983. The description of the contents of the said 140 Pkgs. had been declared in Col. No. 6 of the said Bill of Entry as 'Tape Recorder parts-Sub-assembly - as per invoice attached." As per invoice No. DMER-10, dated 31-8-1983 of M/s of entry, the unit price per sub-assembly was Japanese Yens 1030 G & I New Delhi and accordingly the assessable value of the said goods i.e. 2000 sets of Sub-assemblies had been worked out and declared in Col. No. 9 of the said Bill of Entry as Rs. 1,08,469/- after adding 20% as notional freight. One package out of the said 140 Pkgs. was opened and examined by the Custom Officers and was found to contain Sub-assemblies (Electronic populated Ptd. circuit Brands) of a Stereo Radio Cassette recorder and the remaining 139 Pkgs....
Central India Tobbaco Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT414TriDel
1. When the case was called no one appeared on behalf of the appellant.Notice for today's hearing had been sent as early as 15-4-1988 to the appellant-company herein. However, in view of the nature of the impugned order we do not consider it necessary to hear the appellant.Accordingly, we heard learned Departmental Representative.2. The Collector (Appeals) has rejected the appeal vide the impugned order on the ground that the appeal before him was filed without adhering to the requirement of the Court Fee Act i.e. without affixing the necessary court fee stamp despite the fact that this requirement was specified in the preamble to the order-in-original. Accordingly, he has rejected the appeal.3. The appellant herein has urged in its memo appeal that the preamble to the order-in-original which was appealed against before the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi did not stipulate the requirement of affixing the court fee stamp to his appeal before the said Collector.In any case it is submitte...
Electrical Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: (1991)LC797Tri(Delhi)
1. The order under impugnment is the order No. 24/Bare Aluminium Wire/ColIcctor/CE/Cal-II/1987, dated 9-6-87 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. I shall borrow the narration of facts from the Collector's order. In this case the assessee manufacture ACSR (electrical conductors). For the purpose of manufacture of such conductors they draw bare aluminium wires up to 9 SWG from duty paid aluminium wire rods and then use captively such bare aluminium wires upto 9 SWG for drawal of finer gauges, as required by their specification of bare aluminium wires, which in turn are used for the ultimate manufacture of electrical conductors. While using such bare aluminium wires upto 9 SWG for captive consumption for further manufacture of finished excisable goods as indicated above, the assessees did not pay duty on such bare aluminium wires during the period 20-2-82 to 8-7-83 as indicated in the show-cause notice dated 16-2-84. We can now examine these facts in our discussion.2. The...
Balamurgan and Balamurli Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC137Tri(Delhi)
1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the appellants are liable to pay duty as demanded by the Asstt. Collector and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in respect of the production of M/s. Balamurli Industries and whether the denial of the benefit of exemption under Notifications Nos. 71 /78 & 80/80 by the lower authorities was correct.2. Two show cause notices were issued to two units in question namely, M/s. Balamurgan Industries (hereinafter referred to as "Balamurgan") and Balamurli Industries (hereinafter referred to as "Balamurli") for the sake of convenience.3. M/s. Balamurgan Industries were manufacturing electric motors falling under Tariff Item No. 30 of Central Excise Tariff during the Year 1979-80. They availed exemption under Notification No. 71/78 reaching the exemption limit of Rs. 5 lakhs on 13.9.79. On 21.11.79 they intimated the range officer about their intention to stop their manufacture of electric motors and to surrender their licence. On 24....
H.L. Seth Vs. Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) Ltd (In Liquidation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas497(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa J.1. The company, Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) Ltd., was ordered to be wound up on March 9, 1978 (OP NO) 54 of 1977), on a creditor's petition, In fact, the company supported the winding up petition. The amount of debt was Rs. 10,530.89. The company did not file any reply to the petition, but in the relay to an application seeking interim orders (CS No. 362 of 1977), the company admitted that it was unable to pay its debts. The petitioning creditor had alleged that there were numerous creditors of the company who were not paid and that the company was doing no business for want of funds and loss of provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), and there were allegations of mismanagement by the directors of the company. It was also stated that it appeared that on getting wind of the intention of the creditors to file a winding up petition and other applications for preservation of the assets of the company, the company 'transferred its valuable tenancy rights in...
Frank Simoes Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Hada Leasing and Industries Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi362; 1988(2)ARBLR161(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT283
C.L. Chaudhry, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant No. I for grant of an injunction for performance of the negative covenant. The facts on which the relief is claimed are briefly stated as under : (2) The plaintiff is engaged in the business of advertising agency. The defendant No. I is carrying on the business of Hada Foods. On 20.6.1987 the parties entered into an advertisii,g agency agreement. The siad agreement inter alias contains the following terms :- '3.Agency Commission : Agency is generally allowed 15% commission on all media and material on the gross amount of the bill. Wherever this agency commission is not applicable to the agency by the publishers, radio or television stations, outdoor suppliers, or other sources, there will be included in the charge to the advertiser(c) 15 /o on net amount as agency commission'. '4(viii) Billing and Payment on Due Dates :- Invoices are rendered by the agency weekly following publication of advertising work completed...
Pradeep Kumar Kapoor Vs. Sbailja Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi10; 1988(15)DRJ375; 1988RLR428
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This revision is of the order dated 1-2-1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby she, on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for shore 'the Act') of the wife. allowed her maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 600.00 per month, but at the same time declining her any expenses of the proceedings. The petitioner is the husband before me.(2) The parties were married on 12-10-1986. They lived together for about three months. Then the wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground that the marriage had not been consummated owing to impotence of the husband. In these proceedings, she filed an application on 10-3-1987 under Section 24 of the Act claiming both maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses but, as noted above, her application was allowed to the extent that she was awarded maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 600.00 per month from the date of t...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Neolac Rubber Mfg. Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC145
1. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is the classification of Radiator Hoses manufactured by the respondents. The Assistant Collector ordered classification of the goods under Item No.16A(3) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the "GET" for short), rejecting the respondents' claim for classification of the goods under the residuary Item No. 68 CET as unspecified parts or accessories of motor vehicles. In appeal, this order was set aside by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) by his impugned order dated 2-11 -1983. This order has been challenged by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, in the present appeal 2. The dispute relates to the entries in the CET after the amendment of Item No. 34A in 1979 by the Finance Act of 1979. Earlier, the entry covered parts and accessories, not elsewhere specified, of motor vehicles and tractors including trailers. With the changes in the 1979 budget, the entry became a specific one, its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »