Delhi Court August 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.
Rajinder Pd. Khanna Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC242; 1988RLR675
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this Wp, Rajinder Pd. Khanna challenges the detention order passed u/s 3(1) read with S. 2(f) of the Cofeposa Act, 1974 (the Act) against him by the Administrator of Delhi on 3.9.87. The order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. The grounds of detention also dt. 3.9.87 were served on the petitioner while he was lodged in Central Jail, Tihar. (2) The petitioner made a representation to to the detaining authority on 26.9.87 which was rejected on 16.10.87. Thereafter the petitioner represented to the Central Govt. through his counsel for revoking the Impugned detention order. This representation dated the 15.10.87 (Annexure 'F' to the writ petition) was admittedly received in the Cofeposa Section of the Ministry of Finance on 23.10.87. It was rejected vide memorandum dated the 9.11.87. These are the admitted facts. (3) In the petition, a number of grounds challenging the legal...
Dharam Veer Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi227; ILR1988Delhi71
Leila Seth, J.(1) In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the Order of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Industries Department dated 3 4th July, 1986 terminating the mining lease for silica/ordinary sand granted to him. (2) This order also dispose of civil writ petition Nos. 409, 410 and 1367of 1987 as those petitions involve similar points of law and tast, pertaining to 'non-observance of the principles of natural justice and non-compliance with the professional requirement of section 4-A'. (3) On 29th June. 1984, the Haryana Government issued a notification under rule 59 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 (hereinafter recurred to as 'the Rules') inviting applications for mining and intruding industrial grade 'Silica Sand' as well as 'Ordinary Sand' in respect of certain notified areas. The notification provided, inter alia, that the applicant would have to apply for both varieties of sands in the interest of harmonious and systematic working...
Chameli Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ313
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) At the outset I may mention that this matter should have been listed as Criminal Writ because the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari seeking quashment of a notice issued under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act for taking action against the petitioner under Section 47 of the Act. Mr. Vimla Mehta, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi had issued notice dated 13th May, 1986 under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act informing the petitioner that she has to be proceeded against under Section 47 of the Act and then the notice reproduces the allegation that since 1977 the petitioner has been committing acts and movements which are causing alarm, harm and danger to the residents of the localities of Mehrauli, Vasant Vihar and adjoining police.stations. It was also mentioned in the notice that the petitioner has been involved in 18 criminal cases, most of them are under the Punjab Excise Act, a faw under N.D.P.S. Act and one under Section 30...
Meena Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ98
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this appeal, the appellant Meena is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment dated the 30th November, 1984 convicting her for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant further challenges the order passed on the same day sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.(2) At the outset we may notice that the main prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case. As they had resoled from their earlier statements, permission was granted by the trial court to cross-examine those witnesses. According to the prosecution, the only eye witness to the occurrence was Public Witness 8 Munni Devi. In her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she had stated that her daughter-in-law, i.e., the appellant herein had murdered her own infant son Ravi, aged 1 1/2 years. The witness in her earlier statement had stated that the crime was committed as she (the witness) had accused her da...
Hotel Horizon P. Ltd. Vs. Secretary to the Department of Tourism and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: (1989)73CTR(Del)136; [1989]175ITR284(Delhi)
The short question which arises in this petition is whether the approval granted by the Central Government, Ministry of Tourism, to the petitioner for setting up a hotel in Bombay enures for the benefit of the petitioner to enable it to have the concessions contemplated in section 32(1)(v) regarding higher depreciation, section 33(1)(b)(B)(ii) for higher development rebate and relief under section 80j(6)(d).The undisputed facts,in rief, are that on the application of the petitioner, vide letter No. 5-TH. I(62) /68, dated January 29, 1969, the Department of Tourism, Government of India, conveyed the approval of the Government for the hotel project Horizon to be constructed at Plot No. 37, Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz (West), Bombay, subject to the condition that the final tariff will be fixed in consultation with the Department and necessary license to run the premises as a hotel will be obtained from the authorities concerned and a quarterly progress report regarding the construction of t...
Falcon Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT673TriDel
1. In the impugned orders the Collector (Appeals) has held that proforma credit of duty under Notification No. 95/79-C.E., as amended was not available during 1-3-1982 to 28-2-1983 in respect of inputs viz. Carbon black synthetic resin and rubber chemicals used in the manufacture of tyres cleared to original equipment manufacturers as the tyres supplied to original equipment manufacturers were exempted from duty. He has observed that for availing of the benefit of the notification the procedure laid down in Rule 56-A is to be followed and under proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 56-A proforma credit of duty paid on inputs is not admissible if the final product is fully exempted from the Central Excise duty. Collector (Appeals) has also observed that the provisions of Rule 11-B of the Central Excise Rules are not applicable to the restoration of credits earlier taken, but expunged afterwards at the instance of the Central Excise officer.2. The appellants have not appeared for hearing befo...
Calcutta Laminators Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC51
1. By a notice dated 7-6-1979 issued to M/s. Calcutta Laminators (the appellants), manufacturers of laminated jute bags, were called upon to show cause why the said goods should not be classified under item No.68 of the First Schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "CET") to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, why central excise duty should not be demanded from them in respect of the goods cleared by them without payment of duty and why a penalty should not be imposed on them for contravention of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector, by his order of adjudication dated 14-8-1980 held that the appellants were liable to pay duty on the goods under item No. 68, CET, for the period from 1-3-1975 to 5-6-1979. In appeal, the Appellate Collector upheld the classification of the goods under item No. 68, CET. However, he held that the demand for duty for the period prior to 5-1-1979 was hit by limitation. It is this order that is under challenge in the present appeal.2. We hav...
Man Singh Lamba and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC586Tri(Delhi)
1. Canvassing that the following alleged questions of law arise out of Order No. A/505 to 509/87-NRB dated 31.8.87 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. GC/DEL/163/83-NRB, G/12/87-NRB, G/13/87-NRB, G/14/87-NRB and G/15/87-NRB-1987 (32) ELT 730 the applicants pray that the same may be referred to the concerned High Court for determination: (a) Whether in the case of seizure of gold ornaments from jewellers shop when the shopkeeper not merely declares the name of the owner and customer but even goes to the extent of producing the affidavits of the customer and files it, is it open to the authorities to confiscate the gold- ornaments without giving a notice in writing to the customers/owners whose details are declared in the affidavit by the owners; themselves? (b) Whether such a power of confiscation by relying upon the rebuttable presumption of Section 99 would not render otiose the valuable right granted and guaranteed by Section 79 of the Act? , (c) Whether it is open to the Collect...
Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT295
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf on Raj Kumar Jain for permission to go abroad for a period of six months from time to time with a condition that one visit shall not be for more than 30 days. I have heard Mr.D.C. Mathur, [earned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Lal for the respondent-CBI(2) It will be seen that the petitioner Raj Kumar Jain along with others is facing criminal charges under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. in a case which was registered against him and others in the year 1979. namely. State v. V.K. Jain and others. After the registration of the case a number of years were spent in the investigation because the allegations of conspiracy and cheating involved corers or rupees.During the course of investigation, it was found that co-accused Vinod Kumar Jain suffered heavy losses and to cover up those losses he conspired with B.S. Aujla and his son Manm...
Chhanga Ram Vs. Prabha Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT191
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The tenant had filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment dated July 5, 1980. of Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, by which he allowed the appeal of the landlady-Smt. Prabha Rani and set aside the order of Shri J D.Kapoor, Rent Controller, Delhi, dated May 31,197), and had passed the eviction order against Chhanga Ram on the ground covered by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. (2) Chhanga Ram-appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs have been brought on record in his place. It is admitted case that the tenant had enjoyed benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act in the previous eviction case brought on the ground of non payment of rent. In the second eviction case the arrears of rent were due from the tenant with effect from September 1,1977, which the tenant is stated to have neither paid nor tendered within two months of the se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »