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.
New Bank of India Vs. Sunil Dua
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT164; 1988RLR448
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) This revision is directed against the order of the trial court dated 12 the December 1986 dismissing the suit for non-prosecution. After the passing of order dated 12th December, 1986 the petitioner bad filed an application under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order dismising the suit. The said application was also dismissed by the learned Additional Judge Small Cause, Delhi on 15th January 1987. Both these orders are impugned in this petition. The respondent has refused to accept notice. I thereforee, consider it as sufficient service. No one is present on his behalf. Since the matter is a short one I proceed to judgment. (2) The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of Rs. 674. 15ps against the respondent/defendant, Sunil Dua. As there was deficiency in court fee the trial court by order dated 21st July 1986 directed the the plaintiff to make up deficiency and the suit was adjourned to 8th August 1986. The deficiency was made u...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT262; 1989(16)DRJ21
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Rajesh Kumar has challenged the.;Judgmentof the learned lower court passed on 3rd September, 1984, holding him guilty under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of Virender Singh and also under Section 324 Indian Penal Code for causing a simple injury with a sharp-edged weapon on the person of Bhuvan Chand. On the same day, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life Along with a fine of Rs. 500.00 , in default of payment of which, he was required to undergo R.I. for one year for stabbing Bhuvan Chand under Section 324 Indian Penal Code Both the sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. (2) The facts in brief are that on 26th May, 1983, Raj Kumar nephew of the accused had picked up a quarrel with Virender Singh (deceased) and Dhan Raj. On the following day, Virender Singh and Dhan Raj were seen sitting in the park by the complainant Kundan Singh. At about 9 P.M., Kundan Singh beard an exchange of hot words between Ra...
indru Ramchand Bharvani and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT63; 1988(17)ECC233; 1988(18)LC18(Delhi); 1988(38)ELT459(Del)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) M/S. Gems Impex Corporation, Bombay-Petitioner No. 3 is a firm carrying on business in diamonds and precious stones etc. Ramchand Udhavdas Bharvani-Petitioner No. 2 was a partner of the said firm. Indru Ramchand Bharvani, Petitioner No. 1 is his son. Both father and son were managing the business of the firm. The Customs Officers received a secret information that smuggled diamonds have been kept by Indru Ramchand Bharvani and Ramchand Udhavdas Bharvani in their business premises (M/s. Gems Impex Corporation). After obtaining necessary search warrant the Customs Officer searched the premises of the firm on 16 November 1979. They found over 2800 carats of rough diamonds and over 400 carats of cut and polished diamonds in addition to number of other items of precious stones, pearls, gold manufactures etc., in the business premises of the firm. However, the books of account of the firm, though claimed to be written up to date, showed a stock of 11.96 carats of cut a...
R.K. Aneja Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi17; 1988(2)ARBLR167(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT294; 1988(16)DRJ345
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) In this petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the award letters (copies annexures 'O', 'P' & 'Q', by which three contracts have been awarded to respondent No. 5 by respondent No. 1 and a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to call the petitioner for negotiation and if he is found to be lowest after negotiation, the aforesaid three contracts be awarded to the petitioner.(2) The petitioner has been registered as Class Ii Electrical Contractor with respondent No. 1 since 1969 and in 1972 he was enlisted as Class 1 Electrical Contractor and according to the petitioner, he bad executed various works of respondent No. 1 to the entire satisfaction of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had invited tenders for the electrification work in the multistoreyed building to be constructed at Bhikaji Camaji Bhawan, R.K.Puram, in September 1984 and the petitioner being found the lowest tenderer Shri M, Gandhi, the then Superintending Engine...
S.A.E. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC511Tri(Delhi)
1. Out of the six appeals in hand, five appeals relate to classification of the goods and one appeal relates to the rejection of refund claims lodged by the appellants.2. Factual backdrop: It is the case of the appellants that they accept on contract basis from the State Electricity Boards, in the country to install Electric Power Transmission Towers made of Steel for public distribution of Electric Power. For this purpose, they received from the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., and Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., duty paid steel angles falling under Tariff Item 26AA of the C.F.T. in their factoty, cut them to size, punched and galvanised them and cleared them from the factory, and after clearance from the factory these steel angles were used in the construction of steel Power Transmission Towers of the State Electricity Boards, Government Body's like National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. They submitt...
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC319Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute in this case is the grant of a refund o Rs. 114 450-40 by the Assistant Collector which was thought by his superior to be wrong. It is not necessary to go into the rules and the notification under which this refund was given by the Assistant Collector or why his Collector considered the refund to be mistaken. For our purpose, it is enough that a refund of Rs. 114 450-40 was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector to M/s. Kirtoskar on 17-10-1980, and his Collector issued a notice dated 15-9-1981 under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act to recover the money. By his order F.No. V68(30)47/TE/81/871, dated 25-10-1983, the Collector set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and ordered the assessees to repay the amount of Rs. 114450-40 which had been erronously refunded to them.2. The learned counsel for M/s. Kirlosker Mr. Phadnis, advocate, argued that the notice of the Collector dated 15-9-1981 was time-barred since the refund order was passed on 17-10-1980,...
National Small Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC54
1. The learned Counsel for the appellants, the National Small Industries, said that the machines they imported makes laminated boards. Rolls of two layers are fed into a machine with a third paper and the two are glued and fixed together to become a rigid board. The laminated boards are used for making printed cartons. The finished material consists of corrugated sheets of plain board with plain or printed sheets on the sides, all stuck together to make a homogeneous and a new commodity. It is, therefore, a manufacture or a production of a commodity. The Appellate Collector was not correct to say that there was no production of any material or commodity as contemplated in sub-heading 2 of heading 84.59 of the customs tariff.2. The learned Counsel for the department, however, contested the submissions. The materials the plain sheets or printed sheets, corrugated board or non-corrugated board or whatever they use, were already in existence and had already been manufactured. The machine ...
Eagle Smelting Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT369TriDel
1. The impugned order of the Collector of Customs Appeals, Calcutta No.Cal-Cus-2932/82 dated 8.10.82 ruled that the scrap imported by M/s.Eagle Smelting Co., the appellants, were not entitled to notification 33/81-C.E., dated 1.3.81 because he held that scrap did not satisfy any of its conditions.2. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that they claim Clause (b) of the notification and not Clause (a). According to the learned counsel Clause (b), unlike Clause (a), has no condition of payment of the appropriate amount of duty of excise or the additional duty leviable. The Collector Appeals was mistaken in his interpretation. The learned counsel also submitted that the grounds in the order in appeal were different from the grounds in the order in original.3. The learned counsel for the department argued that the importation was after 1.3.81 when amendments to item 27A had been introduced. He then quoted 1983 ELT 292, 1985 (20) ELT 222. He also quoted from Tribunal's order No. 2...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Indoprint Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC168Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dissatisfied with that part of the impugned order which held that the demand for Rs. 44,062.80 issued for the period November, 1980 to March, 1981 is time-barred except for few days and that the value of bought out items cannot be clubbed for determining the eligibility under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980, the Revenue had filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop : M/s. Indoprint Enterprises, Ahmedabad, the respondents herein are manufacturer of Textile Machinery falling under Tariff Item 68. During the period from 1-11-1980 to 31-3-1981 the respondents cleared the goods Textile Processing Machinery falling under Tariff Item 68 to the value of Rs. 29,50,785.00. According to the department as per proviso (ii) to Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980, the value of clearances eligible for exemption during the relevant period should not have exceeded Rs. 24 lakhs. In other words the respondents were eligible under the said Notification for exemption upt...
Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)ARBLR225(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT372
Chandhry, J. (1) M/S Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Pvt, Ltd. (hereinafter called the claimant) was awarded the work of construction of Delhi High Court building at Sher Shah Road, New Delhi by the respondent vide agreement No. 2/RE-DADXII/71-72. The work was to be commenced from 12 6.1971 and had to be completed by 11.1.1973. However, the work was actually completed on 17.1.1976. (2) Certain disputes arose between the parties out of the execution of the above said work. Initially Shri M.S. Narang was appointed as the sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. He resigned on 30.6.1980. Thereafter Shri Krishnamurthy and then Shri Ch. Prabhakar Rao was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The claimant was not satisfied with the appointment of Ch. Prabhakar Rao. He moved an application for the removal of Ch. Prabhakar Rao as Arbitrator in the High Court of Delhi, being 0.M.P. No. 71/1983. The petition was allowed. By order dated 10.4.1985 Ch. Prabhakar Rao was r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »