Delhi Court May 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.
Vijaya Kumar Gujral Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1198; 1988(14)DRJ14; ILR1988Delhi38
H.C. Goel, J.1. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the order of detention dt. December 17, 1985 passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, respondent 2, under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA) with a view to preventing Vijay Kumar Gujral, petitioner, from smuggling gold into India and also from abetting him in smuggling of gold. In the grounds of detention it is stated that on February 5, 1985, five packages lying at the A.F. Godown in C.W.C. Import Cargo Unit, Gurgaon Road, New Delhi were examined by the customs officers in the presence of one Shri Mohd. Ali Abdi, Second Secretary, Somalia Embassy. On examination 200 gold biscuits were recovered. Shri Mohd. Ali Abdi confirmed that the contents of the five packages were as per the invoice. The packages had been imported by said Shri Abdi. Shri Abdi had appointed M/s Capital Refrigeratio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Escorts Employees' Welfare Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: [1989]175ITR106(Delhi)
1. There is no appearance for the respondent. Having heard council for the petitioner, we that the Tribunal's order does not give rise to question of law. We, thereforee, direct the Tribunal to make a consolidated statement of case for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 and refer for the decision of this court the following questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,01,000 received by the assessed in the assessment year 1977-78 and Rs. 20,00,000 received in the assessment year 1978-79 did not constitute income liable to tax 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessed ought to be taxed at a rate applicable to an association of persons and not at the flat rate of 65% as held by the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. The applications are disposed of. No costs. ...
Ramji Lal Vs. State
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...
DechIn Bisht Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi87
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Shri B. D. Ram. Joint Secretary, Home and Confidential, Department of Uttar Pradesh, passed three orders of detention on 9-8-86 affecting Toshi Bisht, Thondup Dorji and Dorji Wangchuc. All the three detenus, by separate writ petitions have challenged their detention. The habeas corpus petition of co-detune Dorji Wangchuc has since been accepted by this Court (Malik Shariefuddin, J.) on 4-2-1987, as a result of which he has been set at liberty.(2) By this Judgment, I propose to dispose of Criminal Writ No. 90187-titled as Smt. Dechin Bisht w/o detenu Toshi Bisht v. State and Criminal Writ No. 128/87 titled Tashi Chambel, brother of detenu Thondup Dorji, as common questions of fact and law arise therein.(3) The grounds of detention disclose that on 22-6-86 at about 4.30 A.M' the Customs Officers of Basti signalled a tourist bus c...
Bhawani Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Properties and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT397
C.L. Chaudbry, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit for the reliefs of perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The allegations disclosed inthe plaint are that the defendants were constructing a building on plot No. 7,Masjid Moth Community Centre, New Delhi, which was (2) Along with the suit an application, which is under disposal, has been filed under Order 39 Rules 1&2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.The defendant are contesting the claim of the plaintiff. The written statement and reply to this application has been filed.(3) It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is not in physical possession of the premises or any part thereof: that the plaintiff has not come to this court with clean hands. On the merits the agreement to lease has not been denied. It is stated that as per terms of the agreement otherwise agreed between the parties the possession ...
Balak Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi239; 117(2005)DLT753
S. Ranganathan, J.1. A large number of writ petitions have been filed in this Court challenging the validity of certain declarations under Section 6, Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' on the ground that they had been made after the expiry of the period prescribed thereforee under the said section. C.W. 1639/85 and 15 others of these petitions were heard by Yogeshwar Dayal and S.B. Wad, JJ. in November, 1985 and judgment was reserved. In the meanwhile, R.N. Aggarwal and Malik Sharief-ud-din, JJ. had heard CW 2850/1985 involving the same issue and delivered judgment on 25.8.1985 upholding the validity of the declaration under Section 6. Since Yogeshwar Dayal and Wad, JJ. were inclined to take a different view, they suggested that the issue may be decided by a Larger Bench, and hence the constitution of this Full Bench. As many as 73 writ petitions have been listed before us and, when we heard these matters, we found that the petitioners in all these c...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT151TriDel
1. The Revenue has come forward with this Appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta, dated 15.11.82. The Respondents cut out Trough from Cold Rolled Sheets (Coil ends) in the form of 'U' shape to place it inside the ingot mould. This Trough is used to absorb the heat of the hard metal. The cut ends are non-duty paid and the duties are demanded at the appropriate rate after collecting the particulars of such Troughs. The Appellate Collector rejected the Appeal of the Appellant against a demand of Rs. 90,942.65 issued by the Superintendent, Rourkela.2. When the Appeal was taken up, Shri H.L.Verma submitted that the Order-in-Appeal could not be sustained because Notification No.75/67, dated 20.5.67 would not apply.3 Shri S.P.Kampani, Consultant, drew our attention to Order No. 694 to 711/86, dated 4.11.86. He submitted that an identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the above appeals and the same ratio would apply to this Appeal also.4. We have held in ...
Multi Trade Overseas Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC31
1. These six appeals were heard together since the issue arising in all the appeals is the same and the facts in the cases are similar.2. The six appellant firms had obtained the necessary L-4 licences for the manufacture of packaged tea. They filed declarations required under notification No. 198/76-CE dated 16.6.76 and also classification lists claiming benefit under the said notification. On approval of the said classification lists they were removing package tea (manufactured by them) on payment of the concessional rate of duty. Subsequently show cause notice dated 1.9.78 was received by each of them to the effect that they were manufacturing and clearing package tea for and on behalf of others and hence they were not entitled to benefit under notification No. 198/76 and it was therefore proposed to recover from them the differential duty on the removals done earlier on payment of the concessional rate. The appellants sent replies claiming that they were entitled to benefit under ...
Orient Presstressed Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC145
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The Revenue has also filed a Cross-Objection.Both the Cross Objection and appeal have been taken up together for disposal.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured P.C.C. Poles for supply to the U.P. Electricity Board as per a contract entered into between the two parties. The goods manufactured were to the specification of the Electricity Board. The contract stipulates that 1% of the Poles manufactured for supply would be tested by the technicians of the Electricity Board in the appellants' factory. A certain quantity of poles were tested by the appellants and they applied for destruction of the broken poles to the Excise authorities.The authorities, however, raised a demand of duty in respect of these poles as there was no exemption available for the poles drawn as samples for test. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. The Collector (Appeals) partially allow...
Alpha Electrical Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC805Tri(Delhi)
1. The Appeal is against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Calcutta dated 19-11-84.2. For the purpose of understanding the controversy certain facts have to be set out. The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of domestic electrical appliances falling under Item 33C of the Central Excise Tariff. Duty on domestic electrical appliances was introduced with effect from 1-3-69. The Appellants obtained Central Excise licence in respect thereof. In 1967 and again in 1969, in the course of their normal trade the Appellants entered into an agreement with M/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd., Bombay. The Departmental officers were under the belief that the selling price of M/s. Bajaj & Company should be deemed to be the assessable value and the Appellant had to pay the duty as such. Sometime in 1973 the Appellants approached the Asstt. Collector and wanted him to consider that the value for assessment should be their sale price to Bajaj & Company and not the sale pri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »