Delhi Court September 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.
Jatinderpal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes694; 1988RLR635
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The petitioner has moved this petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. praying that a complaint u/s 498-A/406 Indian Penal Code filed on police report before the court of Miss Asha Menon, M.M., Delhi, be quashed. (2) The main ground takes is that reconciliation has since taken place between the couple who arc having a three year old child to be looked after and that since there has been a reconciliation pendency of this proceedings is seriously going to erode the matrimonial harmony of the couple and may in the process their matrimonial life. (3) An application was moved by the wife who, in fact, was the real aggrieved party before the learned M.M. for withdrawal of the complaint but the M.M. declined to accede to the request on the ground that the prayer was not maintainable in view of the provisions of law and since the complaint has been filed on a police report it can only be withdrawn by the P.P. It seems that the court below did agree with the contention that there w...
Secure Investment Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ220
R.N. Pyne, C.J.(1) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 8th July, 1985 given by the respondent No. I, the Delhi Development Authority, to the respondent No. 2 M/s. Raja Towers (P) Limited, alleging misuse of plot No. 30 and 31, District Centre, Kalkaji, Nehru Place, New Delhi.(2) The facts and circumstances of this case may shortly be stated.(3) On 18th October, 1972, the respondent No. I, Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'D.D.A.') put up for auction the leasehold right of plot No. 30-31, Nehru Place, New Delhi, of which the respondent No. 2, M/s. Raja Towers (P) Limited, was declared as the highest bidder. The auction was made subject to certain terms and conditions. Under Clause 4(2)(i) of the Terms and Conditions the lessee shall have to errect, within three years from the date of offer of the possession of the plot, a building in accordance with the type, design and other architectural features prescribed by the Delhi Develo...
Sorinder Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ200
Malib Sharief-ud-din, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the 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 (as amended) with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting the smuggled goods. The detention order was passed on the basis of an incident dated 17th of September, 1987 when the petitioner who as an employee of one Narvinder Singh had gone to take delivery of two boxes from the New Delhi Railway Station where be was apprehended with these two boxes by the customs officers who found 15,000 pieces of Electronic Digital Disco Ladies watches of foreign origin. On investigation ft was found that the petitioner was engaged in transporting smuggled goods. (2) The petitioner was formally arrested on 18th of September, 1987 and was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody. O...
Saeed Ali Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes892; ILR1988Delhi161
Mauk, J. (1) The picnicker is aggrieved of the detention pursuant to the detention order dated 1st of March 1988 passed under section 3(1) read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by the Delhi Administration. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods, namely, foreign currency out of India. (2) This followed an incident dated 6th of November 1987 when the petitioner was about to board a flight British Airways Flight No. 146 and was to land at Kuwait. On presenting himself for customs clearance he was found carrying Us $ 50,780, Kuwait Dinner 115 and Uae Durham 10. The detenu-petitioner failed to produce any evidence about his being in lawful possession of this foreign currency. The matter was investigated and it was found that the petitioner-detenu was smuggling this foreign currency out of India.(3) The petitioner-detenu was arrested on the same date, but was granted b...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mala Metals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: (1991)LC416Tri(Delhi)
1. The question to be decided in these appeals is whether deemed Modvat credit is admissible to the respondents in respect of duty on inputs which figured in the Notification Nos. 149/86-CE., 152/86-C.E., 172/84-C.E., 178/84-C.E. and 208/83-C.E. These notifications exempted the whole of the Central Excise duty on the goods specified therein subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the notifications.The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that as the inputs were exempted from the whole of Central Excise duty by the aforesaid notifications, they were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid or charged to nil rate of duty and hence the Modvat credit was not admissible in terms of the second proviso to the direction contained in the Ministry's letter F. No. B-22/5/86-TRU dated 7-4-1986. The order of the Assistant Collector was set aside by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi by the impugned order. Hence these appeals before this Tribunal.2. I h...
Vinod Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC275Tri(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals which involve common questions were heard together and are being decided together by this common order.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper which is liable to central excise duty. At the relevant time (1-7-1980 to 31.2.80 in appeal No. 885 and 1.1.1981 to 30.6.81 in appeal No. 1431) the appellants were enjoying concessional rateof excise duty to the extent of 50% of the effective rates in terms of notification No.128/77-CE. During the course of scrutiny of the appellants' accounts it came to the attention of the Central Excise Officers that the appellants were collecting central excise duty from their customers at the full rate (effective rate) but debiting only 50% of the duty to the Government. Therefore, the Department were of the opinion that the appellants were collecting extra amount from their buyers in the name of excise duty and, therefore, the assessable value had to be revised upwards. At the relevant time the appellants were payin...
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mangal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT351
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 10th October 1985 in I.D. No, 872 of 1983. (2) Vide notification dated 23rd November 1983 an industrial dispute between the management of National Seeds Corporation Limited and its workman Shri Mangal Singh was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of reference read as follows. 'WHETHER the services of Shri Mangal Singh have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled ?'After the receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the parties. The workman filed his statement of claim, however, though time 'was given to the management to file the written statement, the management failed to file the written statement on the given date and, thereforee, on that very day, an order was made by the Labour Court proceeding ex-parte against the management. (3) It is the case of the petitione...
Sushila Devi Vs. Parshotam Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: 1989(16)DRJ69
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Smt. Sushila Devi since deceased had filed this regular second appeal against judgment and decree dated January 18, 1983, of Shri S.R. Goel, Additional District Judge, by which he had dismissed the appeal against judgment and decree dated August 7, 1982, of ShriY.S. Jonwal, Sub-Judge, Delhi, whereby he had dismissed the suit brought by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 2,550.00 as arrears of rent.(2) The appellant has died on May 23, 1987, during the pendency of the present appeal. The two applications have been moved by her husband, namely, Vidya Sagar Vaid one under Order Xxii Rules 3, 9, 10 & Ii read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and another under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking that he be brought on the record as sole heir of deceased appellant inasmuch as the deceased during her life time had executed a valid will in his favor bequeathing her properties to him alone to the exclusion of her one son and two daughters. It has been pleaded b...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Super Fabrics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT284TriDel
1. The appeal was orignally a review show cause notice issued by the Central Government proposing to set aside the order of the Appellant Collector of Central Excise, and to restore the Assistant Collector's order or pass such orders as deemed fit after considering the submissions of the assessee.2. The matter originated in an order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise whereby he imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- upon the respondents and ordered the confiscation of seized goods comprising tufted cotton fabrics with the option to redeem the same on payment of a fine. The respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector who in the impugned order accepted their contention and held that the subject goods were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68 since in the production of tufted bed cover there was neither any processing of fabrics nor weaving knitting nor stitching. The Appellate authority in his order observed that even the primary sheet was not made or woven...
Thackers Foods and Beverages Pvt. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT442TriDel
1. M/s. Thackers Foods & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. had filed an appeal being aggrieved from adjudication order No. 898/88 dated 26th May, 1988.Simultaneously a stay application was also filed.2. Shri Vinay Bhasin, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the ap- plicant and has stated that the learned Additional Collector did not pass a speaking order and did not record reasons vide his order dated 26th May, 1988 and had directed only the operative part of the order and he had also filed another paper book yesterday supported with an affidavit of Shri A. K. Sodi which contains an adjudication order dated 26th May, 1988 and with the order he has also attached the reasons recorded by the Additional Collector. Mr. Bhasin says that the reasons do not bear any date and the signatures and cannot form part of the order which was passed by the Additional Collector on 26th May, 1988. Mr. Bhasin has made a prayer for the grant of stay and has also requested that the goods may be released a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »