Delhi Court January 1992 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.
Ramakant Wire Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT148TriDel
1. M/s. Ramakant Wire Industries, Hyderabad have filed an appeal being aggeieved from the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of ACSR and AAC Conductors. For the manufacture of the said conductors bare aluminium wire which is the subject matter of the proceedings and which is drawn from the aluminium rods are used and the specification of the said wires are 10 SWG and less than 10 SWG.These wires are drawn from the duty paid aluminium rods and are used to manufacture conductors and the appellants have duly paid the duty on the conductors. In the present matter the Revenue authorities have demanded duty on the said bare aluminium wires less than 10 SWG after issuing a show cause notice in December 1981, and the period involved is October 1978 to February, 1982. A reply to the show cause notice also has been given. The Assistant Collector had rejected the appeal and the appellants having no...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Samir Pharmaceuticals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT220TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the decision of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the demand in question was time-barred, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that the respondents, M/s.Samir Pharmaceuticals are the manufacturers of P or P Medicines. It is the case of the Department that during the course of scrutiny, it was found that the respondents had filed classification list No. 207/81 effective from 2-11-1981 for their product "Ventical Injections" claiming benefit under Notification No. 116/89 enclosing the label. It was approved as filed. It appears that thereafter the Department got it examined subsequently by Deputy Chief Chemist and issued the Show Cause Notice dated 8-10-1984 for the period from 3-11-1981 to 2-1-1982 calling upon them to pay the duty amount of Rs. 10,710.95. The Assistant Collector after usual adjudication proceedings confirmed the demand. On appeal by the respondents, the Collector (Appeals) held that the demand is time-ba...
Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT557TriDel
1. Question involved in both these appeals is a common one, therefore, a common order is being passed.2. The question in controversy is whether the sea freight should be included in the CIF value of the goods for the purposes of assessment when they have been imported by air. The lower appellate authority has held that the transport of goods by air is nowadays also a usual mode adopted in the international trade. Normal practice is, therefore, to be reckoned with reference to the actual freight paid by sea or air.With the advance in technology and necessity of speed of movement of goods in the international market there is increasing trend towards transportation of goods by air. It has, therefore, been held that valuation for the purposes of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act based on air freight would be in order.3. The appellants' learned advocate Shri Rajesh Kumar has contended on the basis of invoice stating that such goods are normally imported by sea and it is for this reason that...
K.K. Berry Vs. the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ315
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The facts are not disputed. Their impact is. First, the facts. On May 26, 1983 a fire broke out in the premises of the petitioner leading to lodging of two claims with the respondent. One in respect of the damage to the stocks and the other in respect of damage to the building, furniture and fixtures. Whereas the first claim was repudiated, on the other policy, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.2,47,733.00 against Form of Discharge and Claim Disbursement Voucher. Since the entire dispute seems to 'have sprouted from these documents, let me reproduce the same. They run as follows: Claim No.83/10 THE Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. Form Of Discharge For Fire Loss Received this 19th June, 1984 from The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company, Limited the sum of two lakhs fourty seven thousand seven hundred and thirty three only in full settlement of all claims upon the said Company for Loss of Damage and expenses sustained by fire and of all demands ...
Brij Bans Bahadur Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT21
S.B. Wad, J. (1) Large scale illegal constructions both residential and commercial has become a major civic problem in Delhi. Innumerable cases have been coming to the Court where it is seen that illegal constructions are made with impunity, many times with the connivance of the officers of the civilauthorities. The Courts are faced with fait accompli of huge illegal constructions which it is difficult to demolish at a subsequent stage. In some cases the Courts have given directions to the administration to fix responsibility on the officers who are responsible for permitting the illegal constructions in theirareas. The evil has reached such a dimension that the Bench of this Court was required to appoint a high-power Committee consisting of the Chiefs of the local authorities in Delhi for urgent action in this matter. Time and again thelocal authorities make a show as if they are serious and seal some premises or demolish some.(2) The present case represents the open flouting of all l...
Union of India Vs. Central Cables (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ268
(1) The petitioner, respondent herein, filed an appeal before the Cegat to challenge the order of the Customs authorities leveling duty of Rs. 16,44,436.00 and penalty of Rs. l,50,000.00 . Before the Cegat an application for dispensing with the pre- deposit was made and the Cegat vide order dated 9th September, 1990 directed the petitioner to deposit the full amount of duty and dispensed with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 10th October, 1990, but could not get an interim order from the Court. Thereafter, on 15th November, 1990 the petitioner filed writ petition No.3612 of 1990 in this Court impugning the same order of the Cegat dated 9th September, 1990. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner made the following averments: 'THAT the Petitioner has not filed a similar writ petition in this or any other High Court or in the Supreme Court of India for similar relief...
Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)ARBLR508(Delhi); 46(1992)DLT423
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is an appeal arising from an order passed by the Additional District Judge declining to grant injunction In favor of the plaintiff against the use or display of the title 'Grahlokshmi' for a Hindi magazine being published by the defendant on the plaintiffs' plea that the plaintiff is already publishing a magazine under the title 'GRAHSHOBHA' which is also registered under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act 1958 under Registered Trade Mark No. 387789 in Class 16 in respect of printed publication. It is alleged that the plaintiff has been publishing Grahshobha since January 1988 but the registration of the trade mark was granted to the plaintiff w.e.f. 18th March 1982. (2) The argument which is put forward on behalf of the plaintiff is that notwithstanding the lack of phonetic similarity, the adoption of the name Grahlakshmi is intended to trade upon the valuable goodwill of the plaintiff's mark Grahshobha in respect of magazines because the meaning conveyed by the...
Union of India Vs. C.P.W.D. Mazdoor Union and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT108
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This writ petition is filed by the Union of India against the Award of the Umpire Shri M.G. Wanare, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, published in the gazette under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act on 15.2.1988.(2) The dispute relates to re-categorisation/re-classification of work-chargestaff and regular classified categories of Cpwd on the analogy of classificationof scheduled employment as per the schedule under the Minimum Wages Act,1947. There is a long-standing demand of the Cpwd worker (3) The two arbitrators disagreed on most of the demands of the workmen through their awards. thereforee, the Umpire rendered his Award. Theparties to the Agreement had agreed. 'The majority decision of the arbitratorsshall be binding on us and in case the arbitrators are equally divided in theiropinion, the Award of the Umpire shall be binding on us.'(4) Broadly speaking, the Umpire has rectagorie...
Master Anupam Poddar (Minor) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: (1992)40ITD569(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals preferred by the assessees aggrieved by the claim of loss on account of hedging of shares being rejected by the revenue authorities.2. Shri Hari Har Lal appearing for the assessee, submitted that, Master Anupam and Master Dcvashish had 13,374and 17,374 equity shares each of M/s. Birla Jute Company Ltd. Out of this, they each had sold 7,500 shares on 19-8-1980 at Rs. 32.20 and Rs. 32.15 per share respectively.They re-purchased identical quantity of the same company's share on 28-8-1980for Rs.34.72 and Rs. 34.71 per share respectively. They both sold like quantity of shares of the said company on 29-8-1980 at Rs. 33.60 per share. The like quantity of shares were re-purchased on 5-9-1980 at Rs. 35.20, Rs. 35.25 and at Rs. 35.10 per share respectively. Master Anupam and Master Devashish as a consequence of the above transactions, suffered to total loss of Rs. 31,050 and Rs. 30,450 respectively. The said loss was claimed as a loss on account of hedging transactions...
Sqdn. Ldr. D.D. Upadhayay and Others Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Cor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ929
1. This appeal, filed by the claimants against the award given on 6th April, 1969 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (for short the MACT), raises questions as to the adequacy of the compensation awarded, and also the counts on which compensation should be determined, in cases of death by accident caused by motor vehicles. 2. There is no controversy on facts, inasmuch as it is not denied that death of Smt. Kailashwati wife of appellant No. 1, D. D. Upadhayay, then Sqn Leader, posted in Delhi, occurred as a result of an accident that took place on 25th October, 1970 when the deceased while sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter driven by her husband, was struck down by the bus belonging to respondent No. 1, (U. P. Government Roadways), being bus No. UST 4656. The MACT returned a finding that this accident was result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, imp leaded as respondent No. 2, who unmindful of the traffic before him struck against the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »