Skip to content

Delhi Court July 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.

Jul 04 1988

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Amaratara Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on: Jul-04-1988

Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC229

1. This Is an appeal directed against Order-in-Appeal No.E.2095/BII-410/83, dated 10-11 -1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. This case has had a chequered history. M/s. Amaratara Industries (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) manufactured "Waterproof cloth adhesive tapes" falling under Item No. 60 of the First Schedule ('CET' for short) to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The manufacturing process is as follows :- "Medium bleached duty paid cloth is the base material for the manufacture of "Wareproof cloth adhesive tapes". The above-said cloth which is in roll form is mounted on the coating machine and release coating is done on one side while the cloth is moving simultaneously through the drying chamber and getting rolled at the other end in the course of a continuous integrated process. The coated roll comes back to the feeding end again and adhesive mass Is applied evently on the reverse side which again after passing through the dryi...


Jul 04 1988

K.N. Shukla Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-04-1988

Reported in: 35(1988)DLT33; (1989)ILLJ374Del

1. The petitioner, who has been removed from service under rule 23 of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), has filed this writ petition challenging the order of removal from service and for directions that after quashing the impugned order the petitioner be declared to have continued in service with all benefits. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, who is a qualified science graduate with Bachelor of Engineering Degree from Roorkee and who is stated to have brilliant academic record and had also received training in U.S.S.R. in design and production and held certain responsible positions in different public undertakings had joined the respondent undertaking as Senior Manager with effect from February 15, 1977, and was promoted as Deputy General Manager with effect from April 2, 1982, in the pay scale of Rs. 2250-2750, was dealt with disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the two charges aga...


Jul 04 1988

Rajinder Gautam Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-04-1988

Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ253

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) These are two petitions by different accused seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners accused have been arrested for offences under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Various legal questions have been raised in these bail petitions as to the powers of the officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau set up by the Central Government under the provisions of the Act, whether such officers are to be deemed to be police officers and any statements made by the accused to such officers under Section 67 of the Act are hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act or not and what is the procedure which has to be followed for holding the investigation of the offences under the Act by such officers and whether all the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable to the offences being investigated by the officers of the said Bureau or wh...


Jul 01 1988

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Navdeep Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on: Jul-01-1988

Reported in: (1988)(18)LC322Tri(Delhi)

1. Brief facts so far as material to the decision of this case are as follows :- The respondent company manufactures a product 'Navdiflx' which had been classified under Tariff Item 68. Later on a sample was drawn In 1981.Test result of this sample was communicated to the respondent company.Thereafter the respondent company herein came up with a plea that their product was liable to be assessed under Tariff Item 15AA as organic surface active agents (OSAA), organic surface active preparations etc.and would be entitled to an exemption vide Notification 208/69, dated 27-8-1968. A sample has, therefore, again drawn. The Chemical Examiner by his report dated 9-7-1982 informed that the sample Is in the form of colourless liquid and It is an aqueous preparation containing an organic compound formaldehyde and ammonium chloride. It does not possess any functional property of OSAA laid down In para 3 of Board's letter F.No. 94/1/81-CX.3 (TA 20/82), dated 21-4-1982. The claim for exemption was ...


Jul 01 1988

Arvind Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Engineering Projects India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Jul-01-1988

Reported in: 1988(2)ARBLR236(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT250; 1988(15)DRJ243

B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, inter alia, praying that disputes which have arisen between the parties should be referred to arbitration. Along with the said application, the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act read with Order 39 Rules I and 2 in which the prayer is that the respondent should be restrained from encashing the bank guarantees which had been furnished by the petitioner. (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent was awarded a contract by the Government of Iraq for the construction of Council of Ministers Building at Baghdad. The respondent then, on 5th March, 1980, entered into a sub-contract with the petitioner whereby the petitioner was required to undertake some civil works on labour contract basis. (3) According to the petitioner, this contract which was awarded to it required the approval of the Industrial Development Bank of India (he...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial