Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-23-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Delhi82; 1988(1)ARBLR255(Delhi); 33(1987)DLT298
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is an appeal filed under Section 116 of The Patents Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 23rd September, 1986 of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs Bombay-respondent No. 2, whereby the apposition of the appellant to the grant of a patent to M/s Jaya Hind Industries Ltd., Bombay-respondent No. I, was rejected. It appears that first respondent made an application No. 151977 on 23rd June, 1980 for a patent relating to an external roster assembly for a magneto and filed the same in the patent office at Bombay. It is stated that the appellant, who has given its address of Lucknow, learnt about the acceptance of the patent application of the first respondent when it was published in the Patent Gazette dated 17th September, 1983. Appellant thereafter in pursuance of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act and Rules 35 of the Patents Rules, 1972, filed on or about 10th January, 1984 the notice of opposition to the said patent of the first re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-09-1987
Reported in : (1989)(33)ELT110TriDel
1. This order will dispose of the application by appellant - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay for condoning delay in presenting appeal to the Tribunal.2. According to the particulars given in the Memo of appeal, the impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 25-3-1986. The appeal should have been filed to the Tribunal by 24-6-1986. The Memo of appeal dated 25-3-1987 was received in the Tribunal on 30-3-1987. The appeal is thus barred by limitation stipulated under Sub-Section (3) of Section 35B of Central. Excises & Salt Act, 1944 by 9 months and 6 days. Excluding the postal delay of 5 days between 25-3-1987 to 30-3-1987, it is barred by limitation by 9 months.3. In the application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri V.R. Gangurde, Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill, the officer authorised by the Collector to present appeal, it is submitted that the decision in the impugned order followed the ratio of CEGAT decision in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-09-1987
Reported in : (1988)(14)LC121Tri(Delhi)
1. This order will dispose of the application by appellant-Collector of Central Excises, Bombay for condoning delay in presenting appeal to the Tribunal.2. According to the particulars given in the Memo of Appeal, the impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 25.3.1986. The appeal should have been filed to the Tribunal by 24.6.1986. The Memo of appeal dated 25.3.1987 was received in the Tribunal on 30.3.1987. The appeal is thus barred by limitation stipulated under Sub-section (3) of Section 35-B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by 9 months and 6 days. Excluding the postal delay of 5 days between 25.3.1987 to 30.3.1987, it is barred by limitation by 9 months.3. In the application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri V.R. Gangurd, Deputy Collector of Central Excise Bombay-III, the officer authorised by the Collector to present appeal, it is submitted that the decision in the impugned order followed the ratio of Cegat decision in Bake...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-27-1987
Reported in : 32(1987)DLT308; 1987(13)DRJ297
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) Ramji Lal was tried by an Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to death on the first charge and to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on the second charge, and to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months on the last charge. (2) I he charge against the accused was that on 29th November 1984 at about 8.30 a.m. at house No. 585A, Siri Nagar, Shakurbasti, Delhi, he had committed the murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Dhan Singh and Sushila with a gun and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The second charge was that on the same date, time and place he had caused injuries to Raghbir Singh, Ved Prakash, Arun Kumar and Nisha with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jul-23-1987
Reported in : (1987)23ITD440(Delhi)
1. The appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 1976-77 and the CO. of the assessee relating thereto are conveniently taken up together and disposed of by a common order.2. First we will take up the appeal of the revenue and state the relevant facts. The assessee is a limited company whose accounting year, relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 under consideration ended on 30th June, 1975. The ITO in the assessment order has not correctly indicated the nature of assessee's business. The assessee's learned counsel Shri O.P. Vaish pointed out that the assessee is packaging machinery manufacturer and not making cartons. It entered into an agreement dated 28th March, 1973 with Christonssons Muskinor and Patontor AD, Bromma, Sweden (hereinafter referred to as 'CMP') which was engaged in Sweden in the manufacture of packaging machinery for in its own specialization system of packaging used for packing of a variety of consumer products. Relevant clauses of the agreement are reproduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-13-1987
Reported in : 37(1989)DLT278
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit, (S N. 108/80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to lime up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that the tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having not been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977. duly served upon him, and that since the defendant.had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-06-1987
Reported in : (1989)(43)ELT467TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 131.B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The dispute involved in the present case is whether the E.C.G.machine imported by the appellant is eligible for duty free entry in terms of Rule 4 of the Transfer of residence Rules, 1978. The lower authorities denied the concession. The Appellate Collector, in her impugned order dated 29-4-1982, has held that since the E.C.G.equipment is not "ordinarily used always", that is, it is not required "for day to day use ordinarily and not occasionally", the denial of the free entry of the equipment in terms of Rule 4 of the Transfer of Residence Rules was correct.3. When the matter was taken up, Shri Vineet Kumar, Sr. D.R., submitted that this appeal would be for the South Regional Bench to hear and dispose of. We, however, do not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-29-1987
Reported in : (1987)(13)LC1254Tri(Delhi)
1. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellants manufacture Dextrose I.P. in view of the label and what is called a monogram on the same merits classification as patent and proprietary medicine under the erstwhile Tariff Item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the Revenue or T.I. 68 as claimed by the appellants manufacturer. Allied question is whether demand of duty against the appellants should be for the longer period of five years or shorter period of six months preceding the date of show cause notice.2. There is no dispute that Dextrose I.P. is a pharmacopocial medicine mentioned in Pharmacopoeia of India page 162 which is a specified pharmacopoeia under Notification No. 47/63 dated 1-3-1963.3. The present proceedings against the appellants are the outcome of a visit by Central Excise officers (Preventive) Patiala Division to the appellants factory on 23-l~1982. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of medicines. On examining the labe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-29-1987
Reported in : 1988(14)DRJ117
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) Delhi Administration required vast areas of land for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of Delhi and issued the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on November 13, 1959. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act with respect to 569 Bighas and 19 bids was of land in Kotla Mahigram Estate was issued on December 28, 1961. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award No. 1374 and offered compensation for the acquired land by assessing its value block wise. He assessed the value for block 'A' at the rate of Rs.2,500.00 per bigha, for block 'B' at the rate of Rs.l,600.00 per bigha, for block 'C' at the rate ofRs.l,000.00 per bigha and for block 'D' at the rate of Rs. 800.00 per bigha. The appellants/their predecessors in-interest are aggrieved of the compensation tendered by the Collector and made a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the compensation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-17-1987
Reported in : 33(1987)DLT267
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) We will dispose of these two R.F.As. and one civil revision by one common judgment even though they arise out of two different notifications : one dated October 3, 1962 and the other dated February 24, 1965 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The land of the appellants along with others' land was notified for acquisition for a public purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi by notification dated October 3, 1962 issued under Section 4 of the Act. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made vide notification dated December 12, 1962. The land of the appellants bearing khasra No. 379 measuring 2 bids was and khasra No. 613/590/381/2 measuring 34 bighas and 16 bids was of village Malikpur Chhawani was acquired under this notification. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award No. 1589 offered compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha. On a reference under Se...
Tag this Judgment!