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.
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shalimar Paints Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT83TriDel
1. In compliance with the directions given by the Tribunal in order dated 4-5-1988, Shri Sundar Rajan, Departmental Representative, for the Appellant-Collector, has produced for our perusal the Collector's file.The need for perusing the Collector's file arose because Shri K.L.Ganguly, Advocate, for the respondents, had pointed out on the last occasion that the Collector's order authorising the Assistant Collector to file the present appeal was not available on record. Shri Sundar Rajan had then drawn attention of the Bench to the attested copy of the Collector's order which was on record. The Bench observed that this order, however, was a general order by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, authorising the Assistant Collector (Tribunal and Review), Collectorate of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, to act on the Collector's behalf in the matter of filing appeals/applications/cross-objections/statement of reference before the Tribunal/Collector (Appeals) in terms of Sections 35B(2)...
income-tax Officer Vs. Ispat Udyog
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
Reported in: (1990)32ITD217(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by the revenue arising out of orders passed by the ITO withdrawing development rebate granted to a partnership firm for asst. years 1973-74 and 1974-75. On appeal, the CIT(A), Meerut has cancelled the orders passed by the ITO and that is how the revenue is in appeal.2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee and have perused the material placed before us.3. A partnership firm M/s Ispat Udyog was constituted by two partners, namely, Shri K.B. Lal (60%) and Sudhir Kumar (40%). It was allowed development rebate of Rs. 9,244 for asst. year 1973-74 and of Rs. 26,771 for assessment year 1974-75. Shri K.B. Lal died on 26-7-79 and thereafter the surviving partner Shri Sudhir Kumar took his own wife Smt. Meena Aggarwal as a partner. For the period 26-7-79 to 31-3-80 the new firm did not apply for registration but the ITO treated it as a registered firm under Section 183(b) of the Act. The ITO took the view that by ...
Banarsi Dass Vs. Shakuntala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi184; 1989RLR83
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) Counsel for the parties have addressed arguments only on issue Nos. 3 and 4. Issue No. 3 arose out of the preliminary objections raised by the deft. that the contract of sub-letting was void being against the provisions of the Act. The stand of the plaintiff in the replication is that the sub-letting in favor of the defendant took place with the consent of the landlord, but even assuming it to be without such consent, the agreement with the deft. is not void ab initio and is enforceable. The onus of the issue is on the defendant. It embraces a factual as well as a legal proposition. Under S; 16 (2) of the Act, no premises which have been sub-let either in whole or in part on or after the 9.6.1952, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord, shall be deemed to have been lawfully sub-let. The owner Shri S.C. Kumar has not been produced by the deft. though onus of the issue lay on her. The pff. entered the witness box. In the cross-examination, he deposed...
Dil Bahadur Alias Bahadar Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes843; 36(1988)DLT342; 1989(16)DRJ92
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant Dil Bahadur alias Bahadur was liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court by its Judgment dated 18th March, 1985, found him guilty for the said offence and sentenced him to R.I. for life. The reason for not imposing the death sentence was that the accused (appellant) was only 17 years of age at the time when the offence was committed on 4th of March, 1984.(2) Initially, the case was registered on the statement made by the injured Anil Gulati to Sub-Inspector Karnail Singh for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This statement was made at about 3.30 p.m. on 4th March, 1984. As Anil Gulati expired in the hospital on that very day, at about 5.30 P.M., in the operation theatre, the offence was later on converted into one punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code There is...
Jai Ram Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi310; 1989(16)DRJ188
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This order will dispose of R.F.As. 368/84, 24, 58, 131 and 139 of 1975 and 350 of 1979 arising out of the determination of the compensation in the revenue estate of village Sahipur by various Courts while answering reference petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (2) The Delhi Administration vide notification dated November 13, 1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) notified an area of 34,070 acres of land for acquisition for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of Delhi. Another notification dated October 24, 1961 under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the Delhi Administration notifying about 16,000 acres of land for acquisition for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of Delhi. The land situate in village Sahipur was also included in the aforesaid two notifications. Several declarations under Section 6 were issued form time to time and awards drawn by the ...
Indian Aluminium Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC442Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants who manufactured aluminium availed of the set off procedure under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules in respect of synthetic cryolite, fluorspar and aluminium fluoride during the period 1.3.1982 to 31.7.1984. In doing so they were availing the benefit of notification No. 201/79 which was amended by notification No. 105/82-CE dated 28.2.1982. It was considered by the Central Excise Department that these three items were neither raw-materials nor component parts for the manufacture of aluminium and that, therefore, the items were not entitled to be considered as inputs under the notification No.201/79. Proceedings were, therefore, initiated against the appellants and by the impugned order the Collector disallowed the credit availed of by the appellants and ordered it to be recovered from them. In doing so the Collector further held that in not having declared that the three items viz. synthetic cryolite, fluorspar and aluminium fluoride were not raw materials or comp...
Central India Machinery Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC223
1. Short question involved in this appeal is classification of the product described as "Bogie Centre Pivot Bold (Pin)" (hereinafter referred to as Pivot Bolt). The department contends that this is classifiable under the Tariff Item 52 as it then stood during the relevant period whereas the appellant contends that it is nothing but a component part of railway wagon and therefore, fell under Tariff Item 68 of the GET. It was noticed by the department that the appellant was manufacturing the goods since long but they had not brought to the notice of the department and had been using these Pivot bolts for captive consumption in the manufacture of railway wagons which were ultimately cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, a notice dated 14-10-1982 for demanding duty of Rs. 24933.12p for the period of October 1974 to 3-6-1982 was issued to the appellant company under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules for contravention, inter alia, of Rule 9(1). On adjudication, it was held by the Addl....
Nandlal Jagan Nath Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC279Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an application under Section 81A(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 for rectification of the Order Nos. A/146 to 149/86-NRB, dated 31-3-1986.2. Adjudicating the Show Cause Notice dated 24-11-1981 the Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi vide his Order-in-Original No. 11/83, dated 20-5-1983 ordered as follows:- ". . . In view of the above circumstances, I, therefore, order confiscation of primary gold weighing 342.000 gms. recovered from Murli Das Patel under Section 71 of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) on him under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) on Shri Narain Das Patel under Section 74 of the Act, ibid. I also hold that Shri Jagan Nath who was knowingly involved in handling, possessing or otherwise dealing with gold at an unauthorised refinery has contravened the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, I, therefore, impose a...
Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT401; 1988(15)DRJ302; 1988RLR669
C.L. Chaudhry, J.(1) By this suit the plaintiffs claim a decree for declaration to the effect that the Judgment and order of the Additional District Judge dated 16-5-1986 so far it holds that the bhumidari rights granted to Bahadur and others is wrong, consequently he and now his successors, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the compensation, be declared null and void and without jurisdiction and of no legal effect whatsoever.(2) The plaint proceeds on the allegations that the plaintiffs are the heirs and successors of late Bahadur whereas the defendants 4 to 8 are the heirs and successors of late Prem Chand. There was a joint khata of 314 bighas 6 bids was which constituted 72 parts and out of this joint khata Kale and Rughan had 21/72 shares whereas Ram Chander had 17 parts, Prem Raj had 17 parts and Bahadur had 17 parts. Rughan, Kale and Prem Raj were sons of Inder. Rughan expired in the year 1966 issueless and was succeeded by Kale and Prem Raj. It is claimed that Prem Raj filed a...
Kulwant Singh Sethi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT368
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) In this writ of habeas corpus for quashing the order of detention dated 8.3.1988, passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Cofeposa Act), the main grievance of the petitioner is that in the grounds of detention, certain documents have been referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority. Copies of these very documents have not been supplied to him pari pause the grounds of detention. Even his subsequent specific request for the same has been ignored. This omission has thus deprived him of his right of making the representation against the detention order, as envisaged in Article 21(5) of the Constitution of India, In P. Moida Hazi and another v. Union of India and others 1985 L.J. 1430, a Division Bench of this Court considered this aspect and held: 'IT is well settled now that failure to furnish copi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »