Delhi Court October 1988 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.
Naresh Chand JaIn Vs. M.V.N. Rao, Additional Secretary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ215
H.C. Goel, J.(1) By this writ petition under (2) The order of detention was served on the petitioner as late as on November 10, 1987. During the in between period of about three years the petitioner had obtained orders of stay from executing the order of detention on two occasions from two different High Courts. On February 17, 1984 the petitioner had obtained an order staying the operation of the order of detention for a period of three month from the Calcutta High Court That petition was dismissed as withdrawn on February 26, 1985. There after the Jammu & Kashmir High Court by its order dated May 8, 1985 had stayed the arrest/detention of the petitioner on a petition filed by him before that Court. That ex parte stay order was later vacated by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court on September 16, 1985. Thereafter the petitioner remained absconded. He again filed a writ petition before this Court praying for quashing of the order of detention on the ground that after the petitioner was orde...
Kores (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC86
1. These are appeals against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported a consignment of 1500 kg Besonyl Blue 636 valued at DM 57,750/- OF. A consignment of the same goods of a lesser quantity of 100 kgs and 200 kgs was eartter found to have been imported at DM 56.35 per kg CIF. The unit price of DM 38.50 per kg CIF of the goods imported by the appellants was found to be lower by about 30% and proceedings therefore, were drawn for adopting the assessable value as DM 56.35 per kg based on the other import. The appellants appealed against the decision of the Assistant Collector ordering the assessment of the goods at DM 56.35 per kg. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), however, did not accept their plea that the lower price charged to the appellants was a special price at arms length and upheld the order of the lower authority.2. The learned Advocate for the Appellants, pleaded that the appellants and another of their...
F.C.i. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC292Tri(Delhi)
1. We have heard Shri J. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the applicants and Shri S. Chakrabarti, learned D.R. for the respondent The Bench has pointed out to Shri Banerjee, learned Advocate, that the appeal which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order no. 371/88-C dated 31.5.1988 related to determination of a question having relation to the rate of duty of excise and as such a reference application does not lie before this Tribunal under Section 35-G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Shri Banerjee concedes this point and says that in view of this provision he has nothing to argue on this matter.2. Shri Chakrabarti, learned D.R. has stated that no reference lies in this matter before the Tribunal in view of the Tribunal's earlier decision in the case of India Jute Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta 3. We have considered the facts of the case and the arguments of both parties. This Tribunal has taken the consistent view in a number of cases the no reference a...
Ganga Automobiles (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. Sales Tax Officer and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC334(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.1. These writ petitions raise common question of law and facts and hence are being disposed of by single judgment. Petitioners, M/s. Ganga Automobiles (P.) Ltd. (for short 'Ganga') and M/s. Competent Motors (for short 'Competent') are the selling agents of M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited. Through these writ petitions they have challenged the assessment orders for sales tax passed for the year 1983-84 under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. Assessment orders were passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Shri J. N. Gupta, on 27th April, 1985, 26th June, 1985 and 14th November, 1985 respectively. The sales tax levy was at 10 per cent of the value of the vehicle sold to the customer. Roughly the sales tax levied was around Rs. 5,000 per vehicle while the petitioners-dealers were entitled to commission of Rs. 2,000 per vehicle. 2. Under suspicion that the petitioners and M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited had conspired to evade the Delhi sales tax, the Sales Tax Department of Delhi Administrati...
Spraylac Paints Corporation Vs. Ishwar Chander Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT365; 1989(16)DRJ66
A.B. Saharya, J. (1) In this second appeal, a question has arisen whether a certified copy of an entry in the Register of Firms ceases to be proof of the fact of registration of a partnership firm because of i spelling mistake in the firm name in the copy.(2) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent-defendant for recovery of money with interest and costs etc. Trial of the suit proceeded on the following issues : '1. Whether plaintiff's firm is a 'registered partnership firm and Shri R.B. Maira is competent to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff 2. Whether plaintiff did not pay Rs. 3000.00 to the defendant as advance of pay 3. Whether plaintiff illegally terminated the services of the defendant, hence defendant is not liable to pay the amount 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest If so, at what rate 5. Relief.'(3) The trial court decided all the issues in favor of the plaintiff and decreed the suit against the defendant with costs. The Lower Appellate ...
B.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT243
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The orders of Land Acquisition Collectors under Section 5-A and the notifications issued by the Lt. Governor under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act together with further and acquisition proceedings in all the above writ petitions are quashed and set aside with cost. There shall be two set of counsel's fees only at Rs. 1500.00 each as the group of petitions were heard mainly in the two writ petitions. The respondents have also not filed the counter affidavits in all the petitions as it was agreed to complete two sets of petitions with counter affidavits. The rule is made absolute....
Diwan Singh Verma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi414
Malik, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged his detention made pursuant to a detention order dated 7th of March 1988 passed by the Government of India under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short Cofeposa Act). (2) This followed an incident dated 28th of February 1988. The allegations on the basis of which the detention was ordered are that one Tariq from Dubai used to send gold to one Mohammed Akram Chaudhary in Pakistan. Mohammed Akram Chaudhary used to hand over this foreign made gold at Amritsar Border to one Sukha Pahalwan and Hardayal alias Dayala. They in their turn used to give it to one Vinod Kumar alias M.P. and Vinod used to carry the gold in truck to Delhi and give it to the detenu Diwan Singh Verma and co-detent Raghubir Prasad Sharma. 'These two in their turn used to dispose of the gold in Agra and Mathura. (3) On 28th of February 1988 one Maruti car No. Ddq 6910 was intercepted at Delhi Haryana bord...
Ram Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ211
H.C. Goel, J.(1) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the detention of the petitioner as per the detention order dated 8-3-1986 passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). The detention order was passed by the detaining authority with a view to prevent the petitioner from abetting the smuggling of goods. The petitioner was working as an Assistant in the Ministry of Finance. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that certain goods consigned in the name of M/s. Charu International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and meant for one Sunil V. Desai a co-detenu of the petitioner and got cleared by another co-detenu Sanjeev Malhotra on behalf of said Sunil V. Desai. It is further alleged that the petitioner had gone to Singapore some time in June...
Shiela Devi and ors. Vs. Jagir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: I(1989)ACC113
S.B. Wad, J.1. Om Prakash, whose widow and daughter have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation, died on 5th February, 1966 near Kela Godown, Qutab Road, in a road accident caused by Truck No. MPH-6094. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,580/- towards compensation payable by respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company.2. The cross objection is filed by Respondent No. 2, the owner of the truck and respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company. They have filed a joint written statement, challenging the award on merits and also raising a plea of contributory negligence. It is strange that a common written statement is being filed by the respondent No. 2 as well as by the Insurance Company. This is because the Insurance Company is not entitled to raise any plea on merits and has to honour the award passed on merits against the owner Under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the time of the hearing the counsel appearing for the said respondent could not justify the pleas rai...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bedrock Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT595TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture a product stated to be rubberised tyre cord fabric. On the tyre cord a rubber layer is laid by them on either side of it by passing the same through the calendering. The process was described by them before the Collector (Appeals) as topping and not as rubberisation. The composition of the same is stated to be 40% cotton and 60% rubber, as seen in the impugned order. The fabrics were held to be assessable under T.I.16A (2) by the Collector of Appeals and exempted under Notification SO/67 as amended from time to time as against T.I. 19(1)(b) as claimed by the Revenue.2. The learned JDR for the department, Shri Chakraborthy, pleaded that the fabric manufactured was a cotton fabric sandwiched between two layers of the rubber. He pleaded that two orders had been passed by the Assistant Collector and in one order, the sam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »