Delhi Court March 1987 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.
J. Joseph Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi173; 31(1987)DLT59; 1990(26)ECC282
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the release of the petitioner's passport No. B-311527, issued by the Embassy of India, Riyadh on 3rd March, 1986. (2) The case of the respondents as made out in the counter affidavit, is that the said passport which was issued on 3rd March, 1986 by the Embassy of India, Riyadh, is case property. The prosecution was launched against the petitioner under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on 26th June, 1986, and the same is pending in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. (3) The petitioner says that he was called for investigation/ examination by the authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, who had directed him to appear before them along with the current passport and other documents. The passport was taken possession of by the Investigating Officer under the Foreign Exchange Regu...
Rattan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)Crimes29; 32(1987)DLT1
Malik Sharif-Ud-Din, J. (1) The appellant was convicted under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short known as Ndps ACT) and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for 10 years and also to the fine of Rs.one lakh and in default to further undergo R. 1. for four months. This order Was passed by Shri S. P. Singh Chaudhari Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi on 3rd May, 1986. (2) I may notice the facts which are that on 15th November, 1985 at about 4.15 Pm Public Witness 7 S.I. Rajinder Singh, who was on duty at Palika Bazar, Connaught Place, accompanied by Public Witness 5 Vijender Singh, Head Constable and Public Witness 6 Sajan Singh Constable is said to have received a secret information in pursuance of which they caught hold of the appellant from the circular park in Connaught Place at the pointing out of the informer. The appellant at that time was found smoking a cigarette allegedly containing heroin and on search four grains of heroin was alle...
Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC193(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the challenge is to the action of the respondents in not releasing the goods which had been imported and also to the levy of redemption fine and customs duty on the said goods.2. The petitioner is an undertaking of the Punjab State Government. The Canadian Hunger Foundation, Canada and one Canadian of Indian origin gifted machinery and equipment to the State of Punjab for setting up an exotic cattle breeding farm at Ropar.3. The then Chief Minister of Punjab wrote a letter dated 7th January 1976 to the Union Minister of Finance requesting for an order being passed under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for exemption from payment of customs duty. Pending decision on the request of the State Government, the Central Government permitted provisional duty-free clearance of the machinery and equipment on an undertaking being given by the State Government that in the event of the duty being chargeable the sam...
Diesel Mechanics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT441TriDel
1. Diesel Mechanics, Mangalore had filed a Revision Application to the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from order in appeal No.S/49-1255/81-R, dated 30-6-1981 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The said Revision Application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal.2. The Revision Application was received in the Ministry of Finance on 11-1-1982. The appellant has made a prayer for condonation of delay on page 1 of the Revision Application and has mentioned that the order in appeal is dated 30-6-1981 and was despatched on 30-6-1981 and the Revision Application could not be filed within six months from the date of despatch of the order as the appellants had to secure certain information from the suppliers M/s. Bosch, Germany which the appellants did not get. In the Revision Application there is no mention of...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Marathwada Sahakari Sakhar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC145
1. Show cause notice dated 15.5.79 was issued to M/s. Marathwada S.S.K.Ltd. with reference to their claim for incentive rebate on excess production during May, 1978 to September, 1989 in terms of notification No. 108/78 dated 28.4.78. It was mentioned therein that they did not fulfil the condition of Clause 5 of the notification and therefore did not appear to be eligible for the rebate claimed. They replied reiterating their eligibility. The Superintendent under order dated 20.6.79 rejected their claim holding that as they did not fulfil the conditions of Clause 5 of notification No. 108/78 they were not eligible for the incentive rebate claimed by them. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 15.12.80. He held that it was incorrect to say that they did not fulfil the conditions prescribed in Clause 5 of the notification. Alter setting aside the order of the Superintendent he remanded the matter to the Superintendent to work out the exa...
Maize Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC99
1. The appellants M/s. Maize Products manufacture, amongst other articles, starch. They had filed classification list in respect of various articles manufactured by them and had included in the said list starch slurry also as an excisable product manufactured by them.Subsequently they felt that it was a mistake since the starch slurry was neither sold nor marketed by them- Therefore they filed a revised classification list 23/78 in which they omitted starch slurry. The Superintendent then called upon them to explain why they had deleted starch slurry from their classification list. The appellants replied giving their reasons therefore Later they filed another classification list in which also they omitted starch slurry. Long subsequent thereto the Assistant Collector issued notice calling upon them to show cause why the two classification lists filed by the appellants ought not to be amended by inclusion of starch slurry therein as fatting under T.I.68 CET. The appellants replied putt...
New Howrah Transport Company Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1987
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas34(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.1. Respondent No. 1, National Insurance Company Limited, has filed a suit against the petitioner, New Howrah Transport Co. The plaintiff had insured the goods of respondent No. 2 which were to be transported by the defendant. The case is about the damage caused to the goods by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The insurance company appointed a company surveyor to assess the damage. I had called for the original record and had gone through it myself. 2. On November 25, 1986, the ADJ has recorded that, before the plaintiff was examined, two witnesses of the plaintiff were examined as no objection was raised by counsel for the defendant. Counsel for respondent No. 1 points out that there is a mistake in the order. In fact, only one witness was examined and that was formal witness, the surveyor appointed by the insurance company. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that it is contrary to Order 18, rule 3. According to him, before allowing any other...
Gurdeep Bagga Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT52a
Aggarwal, J.1. This is a petition by Gurdeep Bagga who is convicted to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder. The offence was committed on 8th October, 1980. The petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life by an Additional Sessions Judge. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by this Court on 11th October 1985. 2. The petitioner was ordered to be released on parole by the Delhi Administration on 21st December 1985 for a period of three weeks. The petitioner was released on 23rd December 1985 and his parole was to end on 14th January 1986. 3. On 20th January 1986 the petitioner filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court with the prayer for the extension of parole period for three months (Criminal Writ No. 15 of 1986.) The extension of the parole period was sought on the ground of the serious condition of the mother Smt. Ram Murti Bagga. Ground 18(A) of the petition reads as under : 'Because the order o...
New Hawrah Transport Company Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC12
S.B. Wad, J.1. Respondent No. 1, National Insurance Company Limited, has lied a suit against the petitioner, M/s. New Hawrah Transport Co. The plaintiff had insured the goods of respondent No. 2 which were to be transported by the defendant. The case is of the damage caused to the goods by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The Insurance Company appointed a company surveyor to assess the damage. I had called the original record and had gone through it myself.2. On 25-11-86, the ADJ has recorded that before the plaintiff was examined, two witnesses of the plaintiff were examined as no objection was raised by the counsel for the defendant. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 points out that there is a mistake in the order. In fact, only one witness was examined and that was a formal witness, the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that it is contrary to Order 18 Rule 3. According to him before allowing any other witne...
Khetsi Dass Gangajal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC538Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant firm applied for a gold dealers licence for the period 1983-85' in January, 1983. The application was rejected by the Deputy Collector of Central 'Excise, Faridabad by his order dated 28-6-1984 after issue of a show cause notice to the appellant firm. The show cause notice had spelt out that the demand for ornaments in the town of Sirsa was declining as per the turnover of the ornaments of the existing gold dealers in the said town in the past 3 years i.e.1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Figures of turnover of the two existing gold dealers in the aforesaid years were given as 1253.950 gms., 1092.200 gms. and 479.200 gms. The original authority, while rejecting the application relied upon Rule 2(f)(ii) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The aforesaid provisions stipulate that the licensing authority shall have regard to the following while considering the application for gold dealers licence :- "the demand of ornaments which is likely to arise in such...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »