Delhi Court October 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.
Mukesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1923; 1990RLR41
ORDER1. The petitioner Mukesh Kumar, in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Railway Special Magistrate, Delhi on 3rd February, 1989 whereby his application for medical examination which he had submitted to the court, when he was produced in police custody, was dismissed. He alleges that he is an employee, of M/s. R. V. Travels, that had been exposing some of the mal-practices, and alleged deeds of corruption of the police officials of G.R.S., New Railway, and that on 2nd February 1989 while he was present at the shop, some police officials of police station New Delhi Railway Station came and took him away in spite of his protestations that he was merely an employee at the shop. He was placed under arrest in a case registered under Section 120/122 of the Indian Railway Act vide FIR No. 109/89 at police station New Delhi Railway Station. He further alleges that he was medically examin...
M/S. Jones and Wexoes (India) Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi245; 40(1990)DLT230; 1990(18)DRJ188
ORDER1. By this petition under Secs. 5, 11, 12 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the-applicant/ petitioner prays that for the reasons stated in the application leave be granted to revoke the authority of respondent No. 3 Dr. B. N. Mani, as sole arbitrator, and it also be declared that arbitration agreement and Dr. B. N. Mani. The only inference which the reference to the arbitrator have ceased to could be reached is that the contention of the exist and have no effect.2.The facts alleged in the petition are that a contract for the supply of 10384000 tablets of Sulphasomidine-500mg was entered into between the parties on 14-8-1980. The total amount of the contract was Rs. 882121. There was some modification of the contract according to which the quantity of the tablets to be supplied was raised to 12814000 and the amount to Rupees 1088549.88.3. Disputes had arisen between the parties, which had been referred to arbitration.4. There is an agreement between the parties regarding the dat...
Collector of Customs Vs. Salim Abbas Bhai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC205Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 1-8-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta by which he had allowed the appeal of the respondents herein by holding that the vessel 'M.S.Jaladharma' owned by the respondents was eligible for duty-free exemption on its clearance for ship breaking. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta is aggrieved by this order and has preferred the present appeal. The facts in brief are that the respondents herein in a letter dated 9-5-1983 requested the Custom House for issue of a No Objection for dismantling and duty-free clearance of the vessel M.V. Jaladharma on the ground that the vessel having been imported in 1957 would not fall under the purview of conditional exemption Notification 262/58, dated 11-10-1958. The department, on enquiry, found that the subject vessel arrived at Bombay on 4-5-1957 for which IGM was submitted on 6-5-1957 and the department thereupon informed the respondents by a letter dated 26-3-1983 that the ves...
Mrs. Anoop Beniwal Vs. Dr. Jagbir Singh Beniwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi305; I(1990)DMC239; 1989RLR554
ORDER1. The plaintiff, Mrs. Anoop Beniwal, has filed this suit for declaration. By this suit, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that her marriage to the defendant, which was solemnized at Delhi on 8-11-1981 in accordance with the Hindu rites, subsists despite a decree of divorce granted by the High Court of Justice, Family Division (Divorce) District Registry, United Kingdom in cause No. 85 D 2539, Jagbir Singh Beniwal v. Anoop Beniwal, which decree, it is contended, is null, void and inoperative.2. The facts giving rise to this suit, as asserted in the plaint by the plaintiff are that the parties to the suit are Hindus, citizens of India of Indian domicile, and are qualified doctors of medicine. It is stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff knew the defendant in the Medical College, Rohtak, where both of them were working as colleagues. Subsequently, pursuant to negotiations between the parents of the parties, on 1-2-1981, engagement ceremony was performed. For that purpose, the de...
Regency Industries Ltd. Vs. Kedar Builders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1989
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT684; 1990(19)DRJ59
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant, their servants, agents, representatives, dealers and all other persons from dealing in real estate and construction business or any other business under the name Regency Estate, or any other name identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's . name/mark REGENCY- The plaintiff has moved the interim application bearing I.A. No. 5570 of 1989, in this matter, and by this order, I propose to deal with the said interim application.(2) The plaintiff asserts that Regency Industries Ltd. is the current name of the plaintiff, and that initially the plaintiff was incorporated on 9-7-1984 under the name and style M/s. Regency Apartments India (P) Ltd., and thereafter changed its corporate name to M/s. Regency properties Ltd. in the year 1985, and once again changed its name to the present name M/s. Regency Industries Ltd. in the year 1987. The plaintiff asserts that it is carr...
Modi Vanaspati Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC156
1. The point for decision in these cases is whether spent bleaching earth was chargeable to Central Excise duty under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The bleaching earth used in the manufacture of Vanaspati as a catalyst becomes useless and the appellants call it spent bleaching earth or a waste material. The lower authorities have held that the material is capable of being sold and is actually sold by the appellants and hence it satisfies the test of "goods" and is chargeable to duty under residuary Tariff Item 68.2. We have heard Shri Vipin Garg for the appellants and Shri A.S.Sunder Rajan for the respondent. Shri Garg has argued that spent bleaching earth is a waste material arising in the course of manufacturing vegetable product and hence no Central Excise duty was payable on this waste material. In support of this argument, he has relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 502 (Del.) ...
Thakur Das and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC468Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28-6-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay by which he had confiscated a consignment described in the related Bill of Entry as metal fittings clamps under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 levying a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 1,20,000/- and also holding that the goods are classifiable as loose leaf binders under Heading 8305.10-CTA and denying exemption under Customs Notification 224/85-Cus.2. The appellants filed Bill of Entry in November 1987 for the import of the above consignment valued at Rs. 1,51,086/- claiming clearance of the goods against REP import licence issued under provisions of Appendix 17 of Import Policy against export product D 2.2.(1). The materials permitted for import against this export product included metal fittings other than zip/snap fasteners. They claimed classification of the imported goods under Heading 8308.90-CTA as being covered by the entry "clasps" occurring therein. ...
Associated Traders Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC210
1. The above captioned 4 appellants had filed 4 appeals in the Tribunal. Being aggrieved from the order No. S/10-83/87 S1IB/DRI/BZU/122/43/86 dated 23rd February, 1988. Since all the appeals emerge from the same order and as such the same are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Prabhat General Terpene Industries Pvt. Ltd.; M/s. Associated Traders; and M/s. Sarvodaya Rosin Works, had imported Gum Rosin of 'FAQ grade' of Indonesian Origin.Name Bill of Entry for warehousing No.Quantity & CIF value.Prabhat General Terpene 2357/66 (N.V. Naptune 90 MTIndus. (P) Ltd. Hasper). Rs. 4,53,228/-Associated Traders. 2357/65 (N.V. Neptune 90 MT Jasper). Rs. 4,53,228/-Sarvodaya Rosin Works. 2508/163 (N.V. Annapurna) 54 MT Rs. 2,71,776/- The above captioned Bill of Entries filed by Shreeram Clearing and Forwarding Agency, Bombay-38 for warehousing covering the import of 90 MTs and 54 MT Gum rosin declared to be of 'FAQ' grade of Indonesian origi...
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC90
1. As stated in the appeal memo, the appellants are manufacturers of asbestos cement products and asbestos raw serves as a bonding agent for production of these goods. They imported 'asbestos raw' which is not a manufactured product, but is a product of mining and hence not leviable to any excise duty or C.V. duty. This issue is, at present, pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the goods are 'asbestos raw' and not 'asbestos fibre or yarn', same cannot be covered under Tariff Item 22F of the C.E.T. Hence, no C.V. duty is leviable. The appellants had imported 4 consignments of asbestos raw from foreign countries and additional duty (i.e. C.V. duty) under T.I. 22F of CET was levied upon the said consignments. So, the appellants preferred refund claim which was rejected by the Asstt. Collector and the appeal preferred by the appellants was also rejected by the Collr. of Customs (Appeals) vide order dated 13-9-1986. This impugned order has given rise to this appeal.2. We heard S...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.R.F. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: (1993)(65)ELT540TriDel
1. Since common issue is involved in both these appeals we are disposing them of by this common order. Appeal No. E/1012/89-C arises out of order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras whereby he set aside the order of adjudication passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras-VIII Division.2. The respondents are manufacturers of tyres, tubes, flaps and some articles of rubber and they avail of modvat credit for the inputs used in the manufacture of the abovesaid tyres and tubes. In the process certain quantity of tyres or tubes which are not finished or manufactured properly are separated and cut which are known as cut tyres and tubes. These cut tyres and tubes which are classified as finished products falling under sub-heading 4004.00 are cleared without payment of duty by virtue of exemption under Notification No. 76/86 dated 10-2-1986. The respondents were served with the show cause notice contending that the said tyres were first manuf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »