Delhi Court November 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.
Bhagwan Dass Pawaiya and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1989
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT15
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to have the orders of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for grant of license L-9 (license for wholesale of country liquor in the Union territory of Delhi) for the period 1989-90 in favor of respondents No, 6 to 9 quashed, as being against the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act 1914, as applicable to Delhi, the Delhi Liquor license Rules 1976, made there under, and the terms of the tender for grant of the said L-9 license. Originally there were two petitioners, the first petitioner being the sole proprietor of the second. Objections were raised about the maintainability of this petition by these petitioners they being themselves ineligible for grant of L-9 license. By application (CM 3632/89) filed on 22.8.1989 M/s Vindhyachal Distilleries (P) Ltd. and Mr. Vijay Kumar Khanna, Managing Director thereof, were added as third and fourth petitioners respectively in these proceedings. This was by order dated...
General Commerce Ltd. and anr. Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1989
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas159(Delhi); 1990(18)DRJ158
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) By this order I propose 40 deal with I.A. No. 4157 of 1989 in suit No. 1464 of 1988, being an application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which it is prayed that the respondents, their servants, agents be restrained from enforcing or implementing the impugned Election Rules, said to have been passed by the Executive Committee of the respondent at its meeting held on 4-8-1988, particularly rules C-6, 7 and 8 thereof. (2) It is not disputed by the parties that the respondent Apparel Export Promotion Council is a guarantee company within the meaning of Section 25 of the Companies Act. It is also not disputed between the parties that being a guarantee company, unless the articles of its association so provide there is no right to vote by proxy. As far as the respondent is concerned, its articles do provide for voting at the annual general meeting of the society by means of proxies. (3) Section 176 of the Companies Act deals with proxies...
Kanchan Dass Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2036; 40(1990)DLT401; 1990(18)DRJ250
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This appeal has been brought against judgment dated February 28, 1989, by which the appellant has been convicted of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and against a separate order of even date by which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in case of default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three-months on the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default, to undergo further rigorousimprisonment for six months on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year on the third count, with the direction that all the sentences would run concurrently. The period spent by the appellant as under trial prisoner was to be adjusted in the said sentences.2. The case of the prosecuti...
Hindustan Monark (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1989
Reported in: (1990)36TTJ(Del)367
ORDERPer Krishnamurthy, President - This is an appeal filed by the assessed M/s Hindustan Monark Pvt. Ltd. taking exception to the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 50,400 which represents the loss of commission as per the claim of the assesse. There is another point relating to a disallowance of Rs. 5,296 which we shall deal with a little later.2. The assesse is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing machine tools at its factory at Ghaziabad and HYderabad. During the course of its business transactions, it received commission of Rs. 50,400 from Kuo Oil Ltd., Japan for services rendered to it by the assessed company. This commission was received by a bank draft and the draft was sent for encashment, it was embezzled by the person who had gone to the Bank for the encashment with the connivance of the bank officials. the assessed company thereafter instituted a civil suit against the bank and other authorities. While the suit is pending the assessed claimed it as a...
Shree Amhuja Chemicals Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC4
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured Tricotise, which was in the form of powder. It is composed of starch, carboxy methyl-cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol synthetic resins. In the classification list No. 2/81, the product was classified under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. On the basis of test report of sample, the product was re-classified under Tariff Item ISA. Thereafter, five show cause notices were issued on 8-9-1982, 20-9-1982, 25-10-1982, 20-12-1982 and 18-2-1983 for the periods from (i) March, 1982 to August, 1982, (ii) August, 1980 to February, 1982, (iii) September, 1982, (iv) October, 1982 and (v) December, 1982 to January, 1983 under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. After adjudicating the matters, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirmed the demands, vide his order-in-original No. MP/57/83 dated 30-4-1983. By the impugned order-in-appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay upheld ...
Texspan Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC17
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 880/87 BCH dated 23-2-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, upholding the Assistant Collector's order of classification of "Be-henyl Alcohol C 22 70%" imported by the appellants as "artificial wax" under Heading No. 34.01/07(2) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ("the Schedule") as it stood at the material time, as against the claim for classification of the product as a "fatty alcohol" under Chapter 15 of the Schedule and consequent rejection of the refund claim filed by the appellants.2. As seen from the orders of the lower authorities, the goods were subjected to chemical test and found to be fatty alcohol having the characteristics of artificial wax and hence the assessment under Chapter 34. This classification would not appear to make any difference to the duty leviable under the Schedule ("basic duty of customs") but the appellants claim is for refund of the additional duty of customs leviab...
Priya Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC41
1. This appeal arises and directed against the Order-in-Original C. No.V/30/15/2/82-MDS/CBE/Cx-Adj. dated 30-9-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore.Facts : On 21-8-1982, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Preventive Group, Coimbatore I Division visited. Priya Corporation, (ii). Premier Corporation and (iii). Premier Agro Corporation. The addresses and the constitution of the three Units are as under:1. Priya Corporation, 2/31, Shri P.V. Jagadesan, Proprietor S/o R.D.P.F. Street, Venkataswamy NaiduPappanaickenpalayam, 63, Rengammal Koil Street, Pappanaick-Coimbatore - 641 037 enpalayam, Coimbatore2.. Premier Corporation, 1. P.V. Jagadesan, Partner86, New Scheme Road, 2. V. Radhakrishnan, Partner S/o R.Pappanaickenpalayam, Venkatasamy Naidu, Siddhapudur,Coimbatore - 641 037 Coimbatore3.. Premier Agro Sarojini, Proprietrix Wife of P.V.Corporation, New Scheme Road, Jagadesan, 63, Rengammal Koil Street,Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore-641 037Coimbatore - ...
Hindustan Tools and Forgings Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC205
1. Brief facts of the case as given in the impugned order are as follows :- "On 28-5-1984, the Central Excise Preventive party, headed by the Superintendent (Prev.), Patiala paid a surprise visit to the factory premises of M/s. Hindustan Tools and Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Dhakansa Road, Rajpura (hereinafter referred to as party) and found them manufacturing roughly shaped forged products of steel falling under Tariff Item No. 25(8) (Tariff Item No. 26AA(ia) prior to 1-8-1983) out of steel flats falling under Tariff Item No. 25(9)(i) (Tariff Item 26AA (iii) prior to 1-8-1983) without the cover of Central Excise Licence for Tariff Item 25 or 26AA and captively cleared the same without payment of Central Excise duty in the manufacture of hand tools falling under Tariff Item 52A(i) for which they had valid licence in Form L-4. The party, thus, was alleged to have contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 49, 52A, 53, 173B, 173F, 173G and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as amended read wit...
M/S. Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Anand Nath and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi151
ORDER1. This is an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for making certain amendments to the plaint.2. The suit No. 804 of 1980 has been filed by the plaintiff M/s. Ansal Properties & Industrial (P) Ltd. for enforcement of a contract dated 6-7-1977. The suit had been filed against various persons. There were in the original plaint, as many as 32 defendants.3. One of the amendments sought by this application is that the plaintiff be permitted to claim damages in the event the agreement dated 6-7-1977 is not to be specifically performed. This is contained in para 14C.4. Counsel for the defendants have no objection to this amendment being allowed, as well as the consequential amendment in the prayer clause.5. Accordingly, this amendment is allowed.6. The other amendment which was proposed by the plaintiff was mentioned in the title of the plaint, which relates to defendant No. 4, Dr. Madhu Bala, and defendant No.13, Dr. Sneh Lata Sood, It is...
Ramesh Chander Kakkar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT625; 1990(18)DRJ126
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for quotient of the detention order dated April 21, 1989 passed by respondents under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Cofeposa Act.(2) The detention order has yet not been executed. In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri A.S.Dagar, Deputy Secretary Home), Delhi Administration, preliminary objections have been raised to the maintainability of the writ petition but surprisingly enough although rule has been issued in this writ petition, yet the counter does not contain the averments opposing the grounds taken in the writ petition challenging the detention order. It has been mentioned in the counter that if the Court so directs the counter can be filed with regard to the merits of the writ petition as well. I do not think that any direction of the Court ii required for fil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »