Delhi Court August 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 3 of about 120 results (0.026 seconds)Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi Vs. Gramophone Co. of IndiA.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi207; [1992]84STC311(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. This is a reference made under section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, who has referred the following questions of law to this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale by the assessed of EMI Vidicon tube type 2677 and EMI tape video recording tape type 620/48/200 VP to the All India Radio in pursuance to the tender notice issued by the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals was exempt from the levy of sales tax 2. Whether the sales of goods imported by M/s. Gramophone Co. of India from Middlesex, England, and subsequently sold to All India Radio constitute one sale or two distinct and different sales; one from the foreign seller to M/s. Gramophone Co. of India and other from Gramophone Co. of India to All India Radio through DGS & D 3. Whether the sales of goods by the dealer, i.e., M/s. Gramophone Co. is a sale in the course of imp...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT350
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) This order will dispose of revision petition filed by Anil Kumar thereby challenging his conviction under Sec. 379 Indian Penal Code and the sentence of Ri turn four months vide Judgment dated 26th February, 1979 and order dated 27th February, 1979 by Metropolitan Magistrate when on appeal was continued by an Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi on 29th May, 1979. (2) Briefly stated the allegations against the petitioner have been that on 9th October, 1975 Sedu Ram along with his brother Sohan Lal was traveling in Mini Bus No. Dlp 5594 from Karol Bagh at about 5.00 P.M. The petitioner was also standing near him. Sedu Ram had raised his hands while holding the rod in the coming of the bus and at that time petitioner removed 10 rupee note from pocket. Hand of Anil Kumar was secured by Se Ram who threw 10 rupee note on the ground and tried to escape but was secured. They produced the 10 rupee currency note and Anil Kumar in P.S. Trilak Nagar where statement of Sedu Ram was reco...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdamba Auto Industries Vs. Kamal Yadav
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT125; (1992)ILLJ798Del
Gopal Chand Mittal, C.J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) On 29th November, 1985, the Labour Court gave no dispute award in the presence of Mr. S.L. Kashyap, who was the secretary of the Union, of which the workman was a member, and his authorised representative. The award was published in the gazette on 5th June, 1986 and it became enforceable after expiry of 30 days. (3) More than two years after the publication of the award, on behalf of the workman, the same authorised representative filed an application under Order 9 rule 13, Civil Procedure Code on 4th July, 1988 staling that the workman was not served in the reference. The Labour Court by order dated 6th November, 1989 allowed the application and set aside the award by observing as follows: 'THEREis absolutely nothing to show that the Union had intimated the workman about the reference. On the other hand the workman has stated on oath in his affidavit that he had gone to his village and that he had no information of reference. In these circumst...
Tag this Judgment!Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT194TriDel
1. This Reference Application has been filed under section 35G of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (The 'Act' for short) for referring to the High Court the following questions of law arising out of Order No.Misc/71/91-NRB dated 5th February, 1991:- (a) Interpretation of provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 in the matter of appeals to Appellate Tribunal; (b) whether filing of an appeal before a wrong forum under a mistaken belief is a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay; (c) whether the period during which the appeal entertained by the wrong forum and remaining pending with them is excludible for the purpose of limitation.2. The facts relevant to the consideration of the matter are that the applicants had filed and appeal to the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Act against the order dated 3rd January, 1989 of the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. This appeal was received in the Tribunal on 14th November, 1990 al...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdamba Auto Industries Vs. Komal Yadav
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR872]
Mital, C.J.1. Rule. D.B.2. On November 29, 1985, the Labour Court gave an award in the presence of Mr. Kashyap, who was the secretary of the Union, of which the workman was a member, and his authorised representative. The award was published in the Gazette on June 5, 1986, and it became enforceable after the expiry of 30 days. 3. More than two years after the publication of the award, on behalf of the workman, the same authorised representative filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, on July 4, 1988, stating that the workman was not served in the reference. The Labour Court by order dated November 6, 1989, allowed the application and set aside the award by observing as follows : 'There is absolutely nothing to show that the union had intimated the workman about the reference. On the other hand the workman has stated on oath in his affidavit that he had gone to his village and that he had no information of the reference. In these circumstances, it will not be ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Sardarni Rajinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992RLR30
Mittal, C.J.(1) Gurprit Singh was a final year student of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh in 1967. The College arranged a trip for the students from Chandigarh to Asanol, Howrah, Tatanagar, Bombay and then back to Chandigarh. For this purpose bogie Ct 3816 was booked from 15.12.1967 to 3.1.1968 through the Chief Operating Superintendent, N. Rly. New Delhi. The bogie was attached with train 308 Down and reached Howrah on the night of 21.12.1967. At Howrah, the bogie was kept far away from the railway platform. Onthemorningof22.12.67 Gurprit Singh came out of the bogie to go to the Howrah platform to take his breakfast. While he was crossing the railway lines to reach the platform, he was run over by an electric train and died in a Howrah hospital. (2) His mother and sister and brother, who were minors, filed a suit for award of Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages as indigent person. A learned Single Judge of the Court tried the suit and by a well considered judgment and decree dt. 2.4.1975...
Tag this Judgment!Raghbir Singh Vs. Makholi Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992ACJ966; 45(1991)DLT425
S.B. Wad, J.(1) In an accident which took place on 25-8-1980, caused by Ambassador Car No. Dly 233, insured with M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, one Rajesh Kumar, aged 12 years was killed. The petition -was filed by the father of the deceased who was 48 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,250.00 by way of compensation. The claimant had claimed Rs. 5,00,000.00 as compensation.(2) Counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that he cannot sustain the claim for Rs. 5,00,000.00 . This appeal was referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement. A plea was taken by the Insurance Company that their liability was limited to Rs. 50.000.00 and, thereforee, the matter could not be settled in the Lok Adalat. We need not go into the question of the limited liability of the Insurance Company because considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that Rs. 40,000.00 Is the just and proper compensa- corporation in the present case,(3) The deceased wa...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Devi and ors. Vs. Darshan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1991)ACC487; I(1993)ACC233
S.B. Wad, J.1. In an accident caused by truck No. MES 1620 of 5 29.1.1980 Govind Ram was killed. The claim petition is filed on behalf of his wife and six children. The claimants had claimed Rs. 80.000/- as compensation, but the Tribunal awarded Rs. 38,400/- only. After deducting Rs. 6,000 as the share of the married daughters, the compensation awarded was Rs. 32,400/- The respondent insurance company has already paid the said amount.2. The claimants had claimed that the deceased was working as a Halwai, taking contracts in marriages and other parties. PW 4 and PW 5 have been examined by the claimants in support of the said income of Rs. 1,200/- per month of the deceased. From the entire evidence of PW 4 and PW 5, it is seen that on an average the deceased was getting employment for about 15 days in a month. thereforee, even if the claimants are to be believed, the income of the deceased would not have been more than Rs. 600/- per month.3. The deceased was 55 years old at the time of a...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Rajasekar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(40)ECC20
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 43/83 dated 26-12-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore.2. The point to be considered in the present case is whether mere supply of raw materials to other units for the manufacture of the goods will make the raw material supplier as manufacturer.3. The facts of the case, in brief, relating to this issue are that the appellant is a sole proprietor of M/s. Vidyuth Engineering Company and also a partner in M/s. Trishul Enterprises and M/s. Gayathri Equipments, carrying on business of supplying steel furniture to the Health Department of Government of Karnataka. Initially it was charged that all the three concerns have manufactured steel furniture and parts thereof and supplied to the Department and got manufactured through other small scale units, viz., M/s. Manchu Industries, M/s. Kripal Industries, M/s. Balamurugan Steel Furniture Works, and M/s. Karnataka Small Industries out of raw mate...
Tag this Judgment!Hastings Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT469TriDel
1. In the matter No. 256/91 in the High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appeal Jurisdiction) relating to M/s. Hastings Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, Hon'ble High Court gave the direction that a Statement of the Case on the following question of law be submitted by this Tribunal :- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that cess on Jute yarn captively consumed by the petitioner for manufacture of other jute goods within the same factory was payable by the petitioner under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 read with Jute Manufactures Cess Rules, 1976 though such cess was paid Jute goods at the time of final clearance from the factory." 1. M/s. Hastings Mill (Jute Division) of M/s. Digvijay Cement Company (the appellants herein) are the manufacturers of Jute yarn, twine and jute products at their factory at Rishra. The appellants possess the necessary Central Excise Licence for the manufacture ...
Tag this Judgment!