Delhi Court April 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.
G.S. Kashyap and Sons and ors. Vs. Director of Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT30
S.S. Chadha, Acting C.J. (1) This petition under Article 228 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated December 19, 1985 and appellate order dated September 1, 1986 determining the lease of land bearing No. 238 in the lay-out plan of Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, measuring 2444 sq.yds. leased out to M/s. G.S. Kashyap & Sons by virtue of the perpetual lease-deed dated June 25, 1971. (2) The petitioners are having a factory in a non-conforming area according to the Master Plan of Delhi. Applications were invited by the Directorate of industries for an industrial plot in the Okhia Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi available for allotment to industrial entrepreneurs of Delhi in the small scale industries and who were interested in shifting their industries from non-conforming area to a conforming area. In pursuance of the application made by the petitioners, they were allotted tentatively a plo...
Collector of Customs Vs. C.N.A. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC266
1. The issue arising for decision In these appeals is eligibility of Metallised Polyester Films imported by the respondents to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 228/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976.2. Our attention was drawn to the following decisions of the High Courts/Tribunal :-Precise Impex (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras (ii) 1987 (28) ELT 11 (Calcutta) - Continental Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of IndiaExport India Corporation v. Collector of Customs, BombayK. Mohan & Co. v. Collector of Customs, BombayHargovinda & Co. Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay holding Metallised Polyester Films as being eligible to the benefit of exemption under the Notification. While Shri K.P. Singh, SDR and Shri Sunder Rajan, JDR reiterated on the grounds urged in the Memo of appeal, we see no reason to depart from the above decisions and following the same we dismiss the appeals....
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC295
1. In this case, the facts are that the respondents preferred a rebate claim initially for Rs. 15,88,486.08 on 28th April, 1978. This was done in terms of Notification No. 108/78-CE, dated 28.4.1978 in respect of excess production of 63,185.61 Qtls. of V.P. Sugar produced during the period May 78 to July 78. This was sanctioned and credited into the Personal Ledger Account on 15.12.1978.2. On 17.6.1983, the respondents filed another application for grant of additional rebate of Rs. 9,94,225.08 to which-they claimed to have become entitled in pursuance of Collector (Appeals) New Delhi's Order-in-Appeal No. 72-CE/MRT/82 dated 10.3.1983, according to which, the rebate restricted to the amount of duty paid on excess production cleared after 15.8.1978 was allowed irrespective of notional apportionment of such excess production into free sale and levy sugar components. This was calculated by the respondents as follows:-_____________________________________________________________Period Quan...
Jai Prakash Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1938; 1988(2)Crimes186; 35(1988)DLT182; 1988(15)DRJ81
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. Jai Parkash, the petitioner herein has filed two writ petitions seeking identical relief. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life having been convicted and sentenced under S. 302 of the Penal Code vide judgment dated the 1st July, 1977. He was about 17 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, i.e., 10th February, 1977. His plea is that being less than 20 years of age at that time, he was entitled to be released and set at liberty within the ambit of sub-para (b) of paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual, as applicable to, Delhi, after completing 10 years of R.I. with period of remissings. 2. In answer to rule nisi, the respondents have filed the affidavit of Shri R. T. L. Disuza, Superintendent, Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi. It appears to be the admitted case that the Superintendent Jail had recommended the case of the petitioner for premature release but the Sentence Revising Board in its meeting held on 25th June, 1987 had re...
Narinder Nath Ukhal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT56
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) Narinder Nath Ukhal, the petitioner herein who is undergoing imprisonment for life for having committed the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks directions to the State for his premature release as according to him he has already undergone over 14 years rigorous imprisonment, including the period of remissions. His case is that his premature release was recommended by the Jail Superintendent and hence he was entitled to be prematurely released within the ambit of paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual. (2) The admitted position is that the provision of Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to the present case as the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 20th February, 1978, i.e., prior to the enforcement of that Section on 18th December, 1978. In the counter-affidavit it is further admitted that the petitioner has undergone a total period of 14 years and 16 days of sentence,.including the undert...
Laxmi Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)Crimes702; 35(1988)DLT108; 1988RLR416
Malik, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged an order of externment passed on 14th of April 1987 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi under sections 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act directing that she remove herself outside the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years. This order followed a notice under sections 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act dated 8th of January 1986. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Lt. Governor which failed. (2) The validity of the order is being challenged on various grounds. The petitioner states that she had filed a complaint against some police officers and that it is in that background that she has been proceeded against under sections 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act. This, however, is denied by the respondent in the counter affidavit. It will be of some advantage to refer particularly to the contents of the notice under section 47 served upon the petitioner. After reproducing the expression used in section 47...
Rajeshwar Nath Gupta Vs. Administrator General and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi179; 35(1988)DLT335; 1988RLR478
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This order will dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 40 Rul(r) I for appointment of a Receiver and under Order 39 Rules I and 2 for the issue of an injunction against the defendants. (2) Briefly stated, the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, and which are not disputed by the defendants, are that the plaintiff is the owner of Block No. A, Connaught Place, New Delhi known as Kashi House. (3) On the ground floor of the said building there is a shop. No. A-3. The said shop measures 1830 sq. ft. on the ground floor and has a mezzanine floor measuring about 330 sq. ft. Besides that, there is an open compound measuring about 250 sq. ft. According to the plaintiff, on 15th September. 1936 the said shop was let out by the predecessor-in-interest of .the plaintiff, namely, his father to Mrs. F. Lawrence Enid. It is not necessary to give any Further details with regard to the tenancy of the shop in favor of Mrs. Enid except to notice that it is an acce...
K.R. Steel Union P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC547Tri(Delhi)
1. The first argument advanced by the learned Counsel for M/s. K.R.Steel Union, the appellants, is that the demand was time barred. It was issued on 17.12.1982 for periods 9.12.1975 to 12.7.1977 and 9.4.1979 to 6.5.1981. There was no suppression as they had declared their manufactures in classification lists beginning with the classification list effective from 9.12.1975. The Collector did not discus" he grounds or point out the facts of the suppression; they had permission to avail the proforma credit and had made suitable declaration. Therefore their availment of notifications No. 237/75, 156/79 and 53/80 was in order.There is no thing in Central Excise Rules or in these notifications which prohibited them from availing the exemptions simply because they had availed credit on the raw materials. He quoted 1984 ECR 1866 re : Hindustan Wire Products, and 1988 (14) ECR 444 Dyeing Printing Mills and read paragraph 5 of this judgment. His argument was that the department cannot go for mor...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sudhakar Litho Printers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC115
1. As these appeals relate to a common issue the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Issue to be decided is whether cinema wall posters are classifiable under item 68 or item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff and the value of clearances thereof should be included in the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for the purpose of benefit of the exemption under notifications No. 71/78-CE dated 1-3-1978 and No. 80/80-CE dated 19-6-1980 in respect of the clearances of playing cards falling under item 56 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that cinema wall posters were not converted type of paper and were correctly classifiable under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff instead of item 17(2) ibid. The value of clearances of cinema wall posters should, therefore, be included in the aggregate value of clearances of excisable goods for the purpose of exemption under notification No.71/78-CE dated 1-3-...
Collector of Customs Vs. Utkal Machinery Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC92
1. The circumstances leading to the present appeal, which originally was a review proceeding by the Government of India and was transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal, are as follow.2. The respondents imported Sand Scrubber machine and a Lump Breaker machine and sought classification of the same under Heading 84.56 CTA.The Assistant Collector of Customs passed an order classifying the machines under Heading 84.59(1) CTA. In appeal the Appellate Collector allowed the appeal inter alia holding that the assessment order was based on the explanatory note to the CCCN and that this application was wrong because the explanation about mineral products that these include the products of Section V are not incorporated in the -notes to Section XVI, notes to Chapter 84 or in the Heading 84.56 of the Customs Tariff, 1975. He further observed that the department's argument that the machines under reference are not used in extractive industries is not justified since the explanat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »