Delhi Court August 1989 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.
Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)ECC76
1. The only point which arises for our consideration in the instant appeal is - "Whether the di-calcium phosphate manufactured and cleared by the appellants was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 55/75 as amended by Notification No. 221/79, dated 30-6-1979." The appellants M/s. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd. Kathikudam are licensed under T.I. 68 to manufacture Ossein and Di-calcium Phosphate.The process of manufacture, as declared by the appellants is as follows: "Crushed animal bones duly cleaned are pumped to the acid bath where it is treated with HC1 acid. Calcium Phosphate Carbonate and other mineral matters in the bones are dissolved in the acid leaving behind the organic matter - Ossein. The dissolved minerals are pumped out in the form of acid solution to the DSP reactor. Lime slurry prepared in the suspension tank is also fed to this reactor to neutralise the acid solution. Di-calcium Phosphate is then precipitated. The supernatant liquid after the reaction, is si...
Worldwide Agencies (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. Margaret T Desor and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas589(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. Two interesting points of law arise in this appeal: (i) Whether the legal heirs of a deceased shareholder can be regarded as members of the company for the purpose of maintaining a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, and (ii) Whether a composite petition under sections 397, 398 and 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, is maintainable. 2. The admitted facts are briefly set out. As per a certified copy of the annual return made out up to February 15, 1984, the shareholders of Worldwide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. were as follows : Mr. S. Desor 600 sharesMrs. Amrit Kaur Singh 545 'Mr. Yash Pal Malhotra 250 'Mrs. Amrit Gupta 200 'Mrs. Savitri Devi Kohli 5 'Mr. A. S. Saluja 5 'Mr. Balwant Singh 405 '---------- '2,010----------3. Mr. S. K. Desor was the largest single shareholder and the managing director of the said company. He died on March 5, 1985. The office of Worldwide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was closed on 5th, 6th and 7th March, 1985. 4. A petition under ...
Madan Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)ARBLR159(Delhi); 40(1990)DLT330; 1990(19)DRJ310
P.N. Nag, J.(1) The petitioner contractor has filed this petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act requiring respondent No. 2, arbitrator, to file the award and the depositions made by the parties before him in this court for further proceedings at required by law.(2) In compliance with the notice issued by this court in this petition, the arbitrator respondent No. 2, had filed the award and the depositions in this court. After the filing of the award in court notice of the filing of the award was served on the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 41 of Indian Arbitration Act on behalf of respondent No. 1 (I.A. 157/87) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 41 of the Arbitration Act for condensation of delay (IA 158/87) in filing is 157/87 were filed. is 158/87 was allowed by this court on 29th September, 1988 and the objections were taken on record. No objections ...
M.S. Home Decolom and anr. Vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru University
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR295(Delhi); 39(1989)DLT242
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, a climnt, filed a petition (S. No. 1854-A/86) under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act .(for short 'the Act') for making award dated 4th August, 1986 of the third respondent the sole arbitrator, rule of the court. (2) On notice being issued, the arbitrator filed his award and the proceedings. Thereafter, parties were given notice of filing of the award. The objections to the award have been filed by the first respondent (IA 1436/87). (3) On pleas of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections by respondents, 1 and 2, (2) Relief. (4) Parties led their evidence by means of affidavits. (5) Three, main objections to the award have been taken, namely, (i) in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties the arbitrator did not give reasons; (ii) the arbitrator gave an award of Rs. l,41,000.00 to the claimant on account of increase in the prices of blocks, labour etc. which was wr...
Kizito E.L. Ibe Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT439
Santosh Doggal, J.(1) The appellant in this appeal has challenged his conviction for offence under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-tropic Substances Act, 19S5 (for short Ndps Act), recorded by judgment dated 9th June, 1987 passed by Shri R.P. Gupta, Addl Sessions Judge, New Delhi. By separate order recorded on the same day, he was sentenced to R.I. for ten years and to a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 ; sentence in default being further R.I. for one year. (2) The charge on which the applicant Kizito E L. Ibe was sent up for trial was of possession of heroin which, was as per prosecution case, recovered from him while present near the iron gate by the side of Decent Bright College, Gali No. 6, Sangtrashan, Pahar Ganj New Delhi at about 4 p m. on 21st December, 1986 when he was accompanied by another person named Emmanuel theonye. Both of them are Nigerian nationals. (3) It is alleged that on a credible information having been received in the office of the Cbi around 2 p.m on 31st D...
Katrala Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC545Tri(Delhi)
1. The only issue arising for determination in the present appeal is whether Polycarbonate Tubes (Bottle Guards) imported by the appellants were correctly classifiable under heading No. 84.19 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as it stood at the material time (as claimed by the appellants) or under Heading 39.01/06 as ordered by the Collector (Appeals) by the impugned order.2. We have heard Shri J. Vellapally, Advocate with Shri S.K. Goyal, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.V. Naik, Jt. CDR for the respondent-Collector.3. In the order placed on the foreign suppliers for the goods, they are described as Transparent Polycarbonate extruded pipes of dimensions 63.5 MM OD X 61.5 MM ID X 210 MM. The goods were supplied under invoice dated 24-9-1984 and were described therein as Bottle Guards Part No.18306 Drawing No. SR 30 (material extruded Polycarbonate). The goods were similarly described in the Bill of Entry for home consumption with further amplification "compon...
Lili Foam Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)ECC81
1. The Collector in the order impugned before us demanded duty of Rupees 12.58 lakhs from the appellants (for the period from May 1985 to December 1986) confiscated four bundles of sheets, with an option for redemption, imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh and confiscated the land, building and machinery with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The facts in brief resulting in the said order of the Collector are as under: 2. M/s. Lili Foam Pvt. Ltd. is a small-scale unit engaged in the manufacture of polyurethene foam. The appellant company commenced production some time in May 1985 though originally set up in May 1984.A team of Central Excise Officers visited the premises of M/s. Lili Foam Industries on 8-12-1986. Certain quantities of foam was found in excess of what was recorded in RG-1. The said quantities were seized by the visiting Officers. Also, certain accounts and documents were seized under a Mahazar on the same day. Statements were recorded from Shri...
Mani'S Press Tools Corporation Vs. Collector Of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC601Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s Mani's Press Tools Corporation, Bangalore have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s J.B. Advani & Co. Pvt.Ltd., Bombay, presented a post bill of entry No. 1998/82 dated 19-1-1979 and claimed clearance of the goods on account of M/s Mani's Press Tools Corporation, Bangalore and the goods were originally imported for exhibition in Imptex Fair and subsequently sold to M/s Mani's Press Tools Corporation, Bangalore who claimed clearance of the goods under OGL in terms Serial No. 4, Part A of Appendix 2 of AM 79-80 Policy Book. They also claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 40/78, dated 1-3-1978. As per the said Notification "Tools Room Precision Optical Co-ordinate Jig Boring Machine including Numerical (Control)" can be allowed under concessional rate of 25% ad valorem. The appellants have filed a catalogue for the goods imported, namely (1) Aciera Se...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Waldies Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1989
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT162TriDel
1. The only issue arising for determination in the present appeal is the classification under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, of "White Lead" of various descriptions manufactured by the respondents. The Assistant Collector classified the products under Heading No. 2805.90 of the Schedule. The Collector (Appeals), however, set aside this order and classified the goods under Heading 2804.60.The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, being aggrieved with this order has come up in appeal.2. Despite notice of hearing, the respondents were not represented before us when the appeal was heard on 3-8-1989. We have, therefore, heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, DR, for the appellant-Collector and perused the record.3. "White Lead" is described as a lead carbonate, basic, designated by the formula 2Pb CO3.Pb(OH2 in the "Condensed Chemical Dictionary" (Tenth Edition) by Gessner G. Hawley (page 606). "White Lead", also according to page 292 of the Explanatory Notes under Heading...
Karnataka Soaps and Detergent Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)ECC288
1. These two appeals and the Cross Objection arise out of the same order of the Collector (Appeals) Madras dated 19-2-1985 and relate to a common issue. Appeal No. E/1460/85-A has been preferred by M/s Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. with Cross Objection by the Collector, whereas the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore himself is the appellant in Appeal No. E/2958/ 85-A. Briefly, the facts are that M/s Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. manufacture soap, detergent products etc. The soap manufactured by them is assessable under the erstwhile Tariff Item 15-CET. They used rice bran oil in the manufacture of washing soap and claimed concession of Excise duty under Notification No. 25/75-C.E., dated 1-3-75. This notification is one which seeks to give exemption of duty on the soap manufactured from indigenous rice bran oil or from a mixture of such oil in order to serve as an incentive for use of rice bran oil. The department found, on scrutiny of the price list and other duty...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »