Delhi Court November 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.
Manjit Singh Grewal, Jalanhdar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT3
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Manjit Singh Grewal-detent has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quotient of the detention order dated June 9, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for short 'COFEPOSA Act'). The detention order has been made with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in 'any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. (2) On secret information being received in the month of April 1988, the residential premises of the detenu were searched on April 27, 1988 and Indian currency of the value of Rs. 2,75,000 and certain incriminating documents were recovered and certain foreign currency was recovered from the bed room of the petitioner's father. The documents so discovered disclosed the names and addresses of persons and the amounts paid to them. The statement of the peti...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Wvg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC297
1. These two appeals, directed against Order-in-Appeal No. E.2440-2441/BD-677-678/83 dated 15-2-84 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, involve a common issue. They were, therefore, taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.2. The respondents were engaged inter alia in the business of texturising synthetic yarn. For this purpose, they were receiving "partially oriented yarn" ("POY", for short) from other manufacturers and subjecting such yarn to the process of draw-texturising. In the process, the denierage of the POY got reduced. The resultant texturised yarn was being cleared from the respondents' factories on payment of excise duty at Rs. 5/- per kg in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 55/78 dated 1-3-1978. The excise authorities, however, considered that the concessional rate was not applicable to the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondents since the POY was being converted into "fully oriented yarn" ("FOY", for...
Vijay NaraIn Vs. Esic and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR932]; (1994)IIILLJ1189Del
S.B. Wad, J. 1. This first appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the Senior Sub-Judge in Suit no. ESIC-30/84, holding that the appellant was liable to pay arrears of provident fund contribution and interest from September 1978 to April 1980. 2. According to the appellant Form 01 under Reg. 10-B of the Act was sent by him to the Corporation, but they were never allotted any code number. It is also contended by the appellant that his employees never actually received the benefit of the Act under Section 46, such as payment in case of sickness, periodical payments in case of disablement, etc. The appellant also submits that they had stopped the business from 1980 itself and the appellants are unable to make any payment of the past arrears. The learned Sub-Judge has rejected all the submissions of the appellant. The learned Sub-Judge further held that the appellants were liable to make over the arrears of contribution for the said period. However, the learned Sub-judge held...
Knit Foulds Pvt. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC66
1. This order disposes of a batch of 10 appeals and two cross objections of these, 9 appeals and one cross objection are by M/s. Knit Foulds Private Ltd. (herein - after referred to as the assessee) and the remaining appeal by the Revenue. All these matters have arisen out of the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 41 to 54 CE/CHG/81/84 dated 14.2.84 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi.2. By the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) disposed of three issues : (i) Whether the product "Nylon Rubber Transmission Belting" manufactured, by the assessee falls for classification as Rubber Products under Item 16A or the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET, for short); or under the residuary Item 68. (ii) If the goods fall under Item 16A, whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Ntfn. 71/78 by virtue of the fact that the clearances of the said product under Item 16A did not exceed Rs.5 lakhs and the clearances of all excisable goods not exempted were less than Rs.20 lakhs b...
Milkfood Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: 1989(41)ELT629(Del)
ORDERRule D. B.1. With the consent of Ld. Counsel for the parties we have heard the arguments and proceeding to decide the matter. 2. Petitioners in this petition seek declaration that the monies paid between 1st August, 1974 to 8th April, 1977 were paid under mistake of law and retention thereof by respondents not only violates Article 265 of the Constitution of India but is without Jurisdiction. Petitioners further seek appropriate writ for quashing the orders dared 18th August, 1981, 21st October, 1983 and 23rd September, 1987 passed by the respondent and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith refund the money belonging to the petitioner No. 1 amounting to Rs. 37,65, 334-59 Ps. with interest. 3. It is not disputed before us that no duty was payable for the period 1st August, 1974 to 8th April, 1977. The authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioners only on the ground that it was barred by time under Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. ...
Sushil Kumar Vs. Bhagwanti Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ289; 1989RLR61
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of both the appeals as these are inter-connected and facts involved in them are almost the same and concern the same premises. (2) The facts in S.A.O. 374/78 briefly are that respondents-landlords in the present appeal along with Jagdish Chand Sharma (since dead) first brought an eviction petition No. 667/72 against Sushil Kumar, tenant, in respect of shop bearing No. 29/3943, Rehgarpura, New Delhi-110005 on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 28th November, 1972. In that eviction, petition (No. 667/72) Sushil Kumar asserted himself to be the tenant of the premises @ Rs. 58.44 p.m. The Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition and passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act against the appellant-tenant. However, the appellant-tenant complied with that order, availed the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and as such that eviction petit...
S.K. Sen and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT189
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This Writ Petition challenges the notice dated 12,2.1973 issued by Land and Development Office to the petitioner terminating the perpetual lease in their favor for violation of clause 6 of the perpetual lease. Before terminating the lease a notice was given to the petitioners informing that that on inspection of the premises on 4.11.1970 it was observed by the Inspecting Officer that an area measuring about 2843 sq, ft. in the main building at the ground floor of 48, Hanuman Road, New Delhi, (the leased property) was being used as Doctor's clinic (Ex-Ray Electro-Medical and Skin Clinic), The said notice called upon the petitioners to remove the breach within thirty days. On the failure of the petitioners to comply with the said notice, order terminating the perpetual lease was passed against the petitioners. It may be noted at this stage that the said Ex-Ray and Electro-Medical and Skin Clinic was being run by Dr. Ved Prakash who was the tenant of the petitioners. On 2....
Jasbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT250; 1989(16)DRJ143
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This criminal writ petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quotient of detention order dated March 7, 1988, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') against Jasbir Singh. (2) Facts leading to the passing of the detention order, in brief, are that the Customs Preventive Staff of the Customs Collectorate, Delhi, on September 17, 1987, apprehended one Surinder Kumar, who was carrying two boxes, at the exit gate of inward parcel office. New Delhi Railway Station and it was told by Surinder Kumar that he had been handed over railway receipt by his employer Harvinder Singh and he had taken delivery of the said boxes on the basis of the said railway receipt after signing the fictitious name of Rakesh Kumar. T...
K.G. Khosla Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)29ITD264(Delhi)
1. This second appeal is directed against the order dated 30th of November, 1987 passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals)-II, New Delhi, in respect of assessment year 1982-83, the related assessment having been framed on 2nd of December, 1985 under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The valuation date as mentioned in the assessment order was 31st March, 1982.2. The first grievance is that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) erred in not directing deduction of Rs. 90,270 as debt owed by the appellant as it was held in trust for M/s. K.G-. Khosla Compressors Ltd., of which the assessee was Managing Director, since its inception.The second contention in ground No. 3 is with regard to taking the valuation of equity shares of Khosla Foundry Limited as per Rule 1-D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 as against claim of yield method, the accounting year of the said company having ended on 30th of December, 1981 as against the valuation date of the assessee which as mentione...
Leela Chopra and anr. Vs. Surinder Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1988
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT40; [1989(59)FLR249]
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The challenge in this appeal relates to the cadre of telephone operators and to the cadre of clerks and their seniority on the merger of the two cadres and/or on transfer/absorption from one branch to another branch and turns on the answer to the question whether the transfer is in the interest of administration or the transfer is on request. (2) The Indian Railways owned and managed by the State employ several lacs of people. Rules issued by the President in exercise of powers conferred on him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India governing general conditions of service applicable to Railway servants are contained in the Indian Railways Establishment Code-Volume 1. We are referring to the Rules given in the compilation of .1985. Some of these Rules correspond to the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules applicable to all civil servants (other than Railways servant) under the Indian Union, who arc subject to the rule-making powers by the Pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »