Delhi Court August 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.
M.L. Lakhotia and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas118(Delhi); 36(1988)DLT175
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioners are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 22 read with sections 46 and 53 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTP Act'). Before I take up for consideration the main grievance of the petitioners, reference may be made to the scheme of the Mrtp Act. On the relevant date it made it obligatory for a company having assets worth more than Rs. 20 crores to be registered. It further commands that no new undertaking can be started without the permission of the Government. This is specifically provided under section 22(1) of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioners in this case were directors of M/s. Indian Tools . Notices were issued to them from 1971 onwards that the company was to be registerable then under section 26 of the Act on the relevant dale. This was so required on the ground that it fell within section 20 of the Act on the relevant date. This dispute continued but ...
Regional P.F. Commissioner Vs. Sardari Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1018Del
Charanjit Talwar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner challenging judgment dated 30th April, 1979, of the Addl. Sessions Judge, whereby the conviction imposed by a Magistrate on Sardari Lal Jain (respondent herein) for the offence under Paragraph 76(a) of the Employees, Provident Fund Scheme read with Section 14(2) and Section 14A of Employees' Provident Fund Act (hereinafter called the Act) was set aside. 2. Mr. Vohra, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset has taken two preliminary objections (1) to the maintainability of the application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, and (2) that the applications barred by limitation. - 3. First we will take up the point of limitation. We may note that Mr. Vohra in support of his submission that the application is filed beyond the limitation of six months has cited Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, : [1964]4SCR982 , wherei...
Collector of Customs Vs. Variety Fibres
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC295
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad against the order of the Collector Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the empire cloth which is stated to be an insulating cloth manufactured by impregnation of the fabric with alkyd-resin, etc is assessable under Tariff Heading 59.06 90 or as insulators under heading 854600.3. The Assistant Collector examined the issue In the context of the classification goods under Tariff Heading 5906.90 vis-a-vis 5909.90 as claimed by the respondents, the plea being that the textile fabric manufactured by them was for industrial use. The Assistant Collector took note of the chapter notes and ruled heading 5909.90 and held the goods to be assessable under heading 5906.90.4. He also took note of the plea of the appellant for assessment of the goods under Tariff Heading 8546.00 but has given no findings in this regard.5. The learned Collector (Appeals), in the impugned order...
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(19)LC1(Delhi); 1989(39)ELT511(Del)
ORDERShri S.S. Chadha, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has raised, in addition to the grounds of challenge as are in C.W.P. 1039/87, 'M/s. Duncons Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others', a further ground with regard to show cause notice dated October 1, 1986 issued to the petitioner alleging contravention by the petitioner of Central Excise Rules, 9(1), 52, 52A, 53 and 226 for evading payment of Central excise duty in respect of cigarettes manufactured and cleared from the factory at Agarpara during the period September, 1981 to February, 1983 and also addendum to the show cause notice dated October 3, 1986. The grievance is that these show cause notices are in excess of the jurisdiction and/or without authority of law inasmuch as the petitioner had been paying excise duty on the basis of the provisional assessments pursuant to filing of provisional price lists and there is yet no finalisation of the provisional assessments. 2. According to the counsel, Section 11A of ...
Santanu Ray Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC51; 1988(19)LC257(Delhi); 1988(38)ELT264(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. The petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are Directors of M/s. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (for short called Duncans) and have raised, in addition to the grounds of challenge as are in C.W.P. 1039/87 'M/s. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India etc.', a further ground that there is no provision in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) or the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called the Rules) by which individual Directors of a limited company can be made personally liable or responsible for the payment of excise duty or be subjected to the penalties. For the reasons recorded in C.W.P. 1039/87, we repel the common contentions raised. 2. The impugned show cause notices have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11A of the Act. Under Section 11A, where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded by reas...
Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC404; 1989(21)LC192(Delhi); 1989(39)ELT4(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. One of the contentions raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the show cause notice dated September 30, 1986 and the addendum thereto dated March 17, 1987 both issued by respondent No. 4 for the alleged contravention of the Act and the Rules is bad, as ex-facie, there is no jurisdiction to issue the said show cause notice and the addendum thereto the petitioners who was in no way connected with Duncan Agro Companies Ltd. during the relevant period thus there was no liability whatsoever under the Act or the Rules as alleged in the said show cause notice. 2. The allegations made in the show cause notice are that it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the statement of facts enclosed that the said manufacturers, Directors and Senior Executives of the companies listed thereafter in the show cause notice, have been evading large amounts of excise duty livable on cigarettes and thereby contravened the provisions of...
Madan Lal Tayal and Prem Kumar Tayal Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Lim ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ51
S.B. Wad, J.(1) It appears that the father and sons are staying in the same premises and are carrying on same work. Telephone connections have been taken in the name of the father as also in the names of the sons. The telephone in the name of the father went into arrears of over Rs. 10,000.00 . The amount not having been paid the telephone was dis-connected. There- after, the telephones of the sons were also disconnected on the ground that arrears had not been paid. A request in writing was made by the father asking for reconnection of one telephone atleast on the ground that they will be able to carry on their work smoothly and that he was sick also and wanted medical attention. On this request the telephone was reconnected. He had also stated that he would settle the claim of the department. inspire of that no claim was settled. The telephones were disconnected and this petition has been filed to challenge the same. The contention of the learned counsel is that the father and sons ar...
Indian Biotech Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. the Assam State Co-operative Marketing ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT60; 1988(15)DRJ322
Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) This order would dispose of I.A. No. 8431 of 1987 filed by the defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) Civil Procedure Code seeking leave to defend the suit No. 230 of 1987 filed for recovery of Rs. 13,44,145.00 under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff. The application is opposed on behalf of the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me, I have come to the following findings : The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of price of wheat seed supplied to the defendant by it on the basis of agreement dated 1st October 1984. The contention of the defendant is that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit as no part of the cause of action arose at New Delhi, that the suit is not maintainable under Order 37 CPC; that the claim of the plaintiff is neither tenable nor bonafide. It has further been urged that on 26th September, 19...
Unique Beautycare Product Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC86
1. By the Miscellaneous application No. E/Misc./238/88-C the appellants have sought to introduce an affidavit dated 21 -4-1988 of Shri Bhaskar Ramchandra Malevar as an additional evidence and have prayed for admitting the same as forming part of the records of the case. In this affidavit Shri Malevar has affirmed about the ingredients of Kajal manufactured by the appellants and the process, of manufacture of the said product. It also says that none of the ingredients loses Its identity during the process of mixture, which is not a chemical process but a physical process. Shri Doiphode arguing for the respondent has stated that the ground that there is no chemical transformation, was not raised before the lower authorities. In the review petition also they did not say so. The process of manufacture was also not stated before the Assistant Collector. Shri Doiphode has opposed the introduction of this new evidence at this stage. In support of his objection he has cited the authority of t...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Lakaki Works (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC27
1. None was present for the respondents but they submitted written arugments for consideration. We, therefore, heard Shri V.M. Doiphode, the learned SDR and persued the written submissions made by the respondents.2. The facts in brief, as stated by the appellant Collector are as follows: - "M/s. Lakaki Works (P) Ltd., Lonavala, Pune (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent' are manufacturers of excisable goods viz. Auto Thinner & Thinner for C.R. Paints, falling under erstwhile TI-68. The respondent were repacking the duty paid Mineral Turpentine and Xylol respectively, in small containers as required by the customers & marketing them with their 'Lakaki' brand name as 'Auto Thinner' & Thinner for C.R. Paints as above described & filed classification list from 15.12.84 & claimed the said goods as non excisable. After following the adjudication proceedings the A.C. C.Ex. Pune-l Division has classified the goods under TI-68. The Respondent prefer an appeal with the Col...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »