Delhi Court January 1989 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.
J.D. Shukla and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC634Tri(Delhi)
1. The present Miscellaneous Application emerges from the above captioned appeal. Shri K.C. Sachar, the Id. Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Applicants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the application for grant of permission for production of additional evidence in terms of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Shri L.C. Chakraborthy, the learned JDR raised a preliminary objection that there was no verification on the application for admission of additional evidence. To this Shri Sachar stated that the application for additional evidence was filed on 17-6-1988 and in case there was any incorrect statement in the application the Respondent could have filed a rejoinder. Since no rejoinder was filed the veracity of the appellants' application is established. Shri Sachar further states that cross objections were filed by the Respondent and in para 9 thereof there are no comments as to the documents at Sl. Nos. 9 to 12. The appellants have all along been agitating f...
Org Systems Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC100Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. ORG Systems, Wadiwadi, Dr. V.S. Marg, Baroda, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order-in-original No. 20/MP/85, dated 29th June, 1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda.Briefly the facts of the case as per revenue's version are that Messers ORG Systems (a Division of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.), Baroda, were engaged in the manufacture of "Computers" falling under Tariff Item 33 DD of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, under a Central Excise licence in form L-4 dated 14th May, 1984 held by them for the purpose and were getting the computers manufactured by supplying raw materials from two independent manufacturers, namely, (i) Messrs Digital Systems International, Baroda and (ii) Messrs Orbit Electronics, Baroda and were sold through Messrs Adprint Services Ltd., Baroda and the assessable value on which the duty was paid by these manufacturers of computers was considerably low in comparison to the value ultimately col...
Mehta Gandhi and Associates Vs. Shree Pipes Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi139; ILR1989Delhi94; 1989RLR149
Bahri, J.(1) This is an application filed under Section 10, C.P.C. seeking stay (2) I have heard the arguments' and have gone through the documents particularly the pleadings of the present suit and the copy of the plaint of the suit pending in the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara. (3) The facts, in brief, are that Shree Pipes Limited (defendant in the present suit, hereinafter to be called 'defendant') had entered into an agreement with M/s. Mehta Gandhi & Associates (plaintiff in the present suit) by virtue of which plaintiff was appointed as Consulting Engineer for Asbestos Cement Pressure Pipe Factory building of the defendant where machine foundations water supply, sanitary works, roads, compound wall. residential' building, water tank, safety tank, sockpits, store water drains, effluent drains and other side development works etc. were to be executed. The job of the plaintiff was to see that the factory building to be constructed is an appropriate building according to time test...
Birbal Vs. Shambu Dayal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT320
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this revision petition is to the order of eviction which has been passed by the Additional Rent Controller against the petitioner-tenant. (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner-herein was a tenant of one room, a verandah and a kitchen on the ground floor of property No. 1658 Sohan Ganj.Subzi Mandi, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 23.00 . According to the respondent the said premises were let out for reside (3) - In the written statement which is filed it was contended by the petitioner herein that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial 322 purposes. It was also the case of the petitioner-herein that the tenanted premises consisted of one room. one courtyard, one store, one canopy, one kitchen, one chabutra, open courtyard, common bath and common ...
Ravi Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi100
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This petition has been brought under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, paying for quashing order of detention dated July 6, 1988, passed by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988, with a view to prevent the petitioner from abetting and financing the export from India of narcotic drugs. (2) The facts leading to the passing of the detention order, in brief, are that on August 22, 1987, at 1.30 P.M. Mrs. Amar Song, who was to take flight No. AZ-787 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, for Barcelona (Spain) was apprehended as there was a secret information already available with the officers of Narcotic Control Bureau and her baggage was searched and two packets of heroin weighing approximately 4 kgs. in all were recovered from her suitcase. In the ...
Central Scientific Instrument Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC584Tri(Delhi)
1. In this matter, appellants claimed to be the sole jelling agents of M/s. Hertel and Reuss, Kassel, West Germany. Under their sole selling agency agreement, they sought to import components required for manufacture of Microscopes in India, as well as complete Microscopes and other equipments for sale.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Valuation Branch of the Bombay Customs House accepted the invoice value so for as components of Microscopes were concerned. In respect of microscopes and other equipments for sale, however, he ordered that the appellant's import invoice shall be loaded in the ratio 70:100 for the purpose of Customs duty. These orders were upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. Appellants have, therefore, now come up in appeal before us.3. We have heard Shri V. K. Varshneya, partner for the appellants and Shri S. Krishnamurthy, SDR, for the department.4. The substance of appellant's contention is that they are entitled to assessment under Secti...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR587(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), praying that the Income-tax appellate Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that weighted deduction under section 35B is allowable on Rs. 50,619 paid to Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a part of the expenses on printing and stationery (Rs. 24,420), posts and telegraphs (Rs. 4,880), electricity charges (Rs. 76,670), rent (Rs. 84,085) and staff salaries (Rs. 88,978) qualifies for weighted deduction as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B ?' 2. During the course of arguments, Mr. S. K. Agarwal, counsel for the a...
Jagdish Kumar Alias Pinkey Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ730; ILR1989Delhi139
Bahri, J.(1) Petitioner who is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. and under Section 25 and 27 of the Anns Act has sought bail. The prosecution case in brief is that during the intervening night of 1st and 2nd June 1987. Sub Inspector Jagdish Prasad accompanied by other constables while on duty, at about 1.45 A.M heard the sound of firing and they reached near House No. 313113 and found the petitioner coming out of the house and he was apprehended and a country-made revolver was recovered which showed that one bullet had been fired from is chamber. They went upstairs and found Pushpa lying dead. She. had a bullet injury near her temple. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner has been rightly challenged for the aforesaid offence and thus he does not deserve bail on merits. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, vehemently argued that there has taken place causal delay in the trial of the case, so petitioner should be granted bail. It is...
Hindustan Pencils (P) Ltd. Vs. India Stationery Products Co. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi19; 1989(2)ARBLR72(Delhi); 38(1989)DLT54
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The plaintiffs have filed a suit for perpetual injunction alleging infringement of their registered trade mark and have also prayed for a decree for rendition of accounts of profits against the defendants. Along with this suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has also been filed for an interim injunction against the defendants, for restraining them from infringing the said mark.(2) Facts, relevant for the disposal of the application for injunction, may first be noticed. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they are the proprietors of the following two registered trade marks:(A)Trade mark Nataraj with the device of Nataraj under No. 260466 dated 6.11.1969 claiming user since 22.2.196J in respect of pencils, refills for propelling pens and pencils, pen sharpeners, pens, fountainpeos, eraserspin, clips and staples included in class 16. (b) Device of Nataraj under No. 283730 dated 27.10.1972 in respect of pencils all kinds, erasers, refills for propelling pe...
Gopal Banik Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes239; 37(1989)DLT318
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. seeks quashment of the detention order dated May 23, 1988, passed under Section' 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by respondent No. 2 with a view. to prevent the petitioner from engaging in transporting and keeping smuggled goods. (2) The order is challenged on various grounds but I need not refer to all the grounds because this writ petition is liable to succeed on a very short point. It has been pleaded in ground Vii in the writ petition that the petitioner had .made a representation against the detention order and handed over the said representation to the Superintendent (Jail), Calcutta, on July 6, 1988. hill the Superintendent (Jail) had posted the said representation on July 13.1988. and the representation was rejected on August 11, 1.988 and the memo rejecting the represen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »