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.
Sadar Bazar Electrical Traders Association and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT251
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioners in all these four writ petitions seek to challenge by the validity of the Household Electrical Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 1981 and the Electrical Appliances (Quality Control) Order1988, both issued under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Ec Act'). The two Orders will hereinafter be referred to as 'the1981 order' and 'the 1988 order'.(2) The petitioner associations claim to represent persons who carry on their business of assembling house-hold electrical items, electrical traders, and also manufacturers of house-hold electrical appliances. Some of the petitioners theme selves either assemble or produce certain items of household electrical appliances or produce components of these items. The respondents numbering four, are common in all these petitions. They are: (1) Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Department, of IndustrialDevelopment; (2) Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries; ...
Sunder Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT478
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The appellants herein Vinod Kumar, son of Subedar Sing Rajesh Kumar, son of Madan Mohan and Sunder Lal, son of Nawab Singh have been convicted for the offence punishable tinder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, They have further been convicted for the offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fins of Rs. 500.00. in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences of imprisonment Were, how ever directed to run concurrently.(2) Along with these three appellants another accusced viz.. Sunder Lal son of Kherati Lal had also been tried. The pro section case as laid before the trial court was that on 16th July, 1981 at about 7.30 p.m. the four accused abducted Kirpa Shankar, who had been entrusted with 43 gold bangles by his employer M/s. NathuMal and Sons, Jewe...
Embassy Restaurant and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT286; 1990(18)DRJ51; 1990RLR52
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The petitioners. Embassy, Gaylords, Quality, Standards and Volga are well known restaurants running at Connaught Place, New Delhi. They have challenged the constitutional 'validity of rule 18 of the Delhi Liquor Licensing Rules, 1976 which provides that a license for liquor in form L-5 for the retail vend of foreign liquor in a Bar may only be granted to the holders of a license in form L-3 for the retail vend of foreign liquour in Hotel or Restaurant. The purport of the impugned order is that Indian made foreign liquor can be sold in Restaurants which form part of a hotel but cannot be sold in restaurants, which are running as independent restaurants, not being a pan of any hotel. The petitioners contend that rule 18 is discriminatory and violates article 14 of the Constitution of India. These petitions were heard by the bench consisting S.S. Chadha, and Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ. Justice Chadha held that rule 18 was unconstitutional being vocative of article 14 while Justic...
Sakthi Pipes Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC306
1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in Order No. C 3/3055/80 dated 17-3-1983 confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds) in order No. S. 25/134/80 dated 27/29-8-80. The issue involved in this case relates to the assessment of Customs duty by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras on 22 shipments of goods which are plant and machinery imported from Belgium for the manufacture of Cast Iron Spun Pipes. The Appellant has filed a claim for refund of Rs. 15,90,023/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 50,764/- refunded by the Department at the time of final assessment of the duty. The Company imported a complete plant for the manufacture of Cast Iron Spun Pipes and the import was completed in 22 parts. Shipments were spread over a period of about three years from 1965. As this was imported under contract procedure, the Assistant Collector of Customs made preliminary assessment directing payments of duty as dema...
Mohd. Anees and Rafiq Ahmed Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT146TriDel
1. Since the subject two reference applications arise out of the common order passed by Tribunal vide No. A/530-532/87-NRB dated 21-9-1987, accordingly a common order on these reference applications has been passed.1.1 Initially the aforesaid reference applications were filed by the applicants and an order No. Ref/5 and 6/88-NRB dated 11-3-1988 was passed by the Tribunal rejecting the reference applications as time barred, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Later on, the applicants filed the civil writ petitions No. Nil of 1988 against the aforesaid order Ref/5 and 6/88-NRB dated 11-3-1988 before the High Court at Allahabad. The said High court vide its order dated 2-8-1988 set aside the aforesaid order dated 11-3-1988 of the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to decide the reference applications on merits. Accordingly the reference applications have been heard on 18-8-1989. The two applicants have raised the following questions of law as shown against the names indicated b...
Rakesh Kapoor Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ529; 40(1990)DLT110; 1990(18)DRJ155
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal' Procedure has been brought seeking quotient of detention order dated May 19, 1989, passed by respondent No 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to preventing the. petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. (2) Various grounds have been urged in support of the petition but it is not necessary to deal with all those grounds because this writ petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground. (3) The petitioner in his representation to the Advisory Board had specifically requested the Board that his co-detenus be examined as his witnesses but the Advisory Board had not acceded to the said request which had resulted in making the detention of the petition illegal. (4) This ground was pleaded by the petitioner as an additional groun...
Arun Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT384; 1990(18)DRJ26
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been brought seeking quotient of detention order dated May, 19, 1989, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the argumentation of foreign exchange.(2) Various grounds have been urged in support of the petition but it is not necessary to deal with' all those ground's because this writ petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground.(3) Ok page 12 of the writ petition in ground No. Iv (whereas it should have been numbered as VIII), the petitioner has pleaded that he bad made a representation dated June 9, 1989, in which besides other things he had requested for supply of some documents which had been relied upon and referred to in the grounds of detention but despite th...
Vishwa Nath Khanna Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ939; 1990(18)DRJ218
P.K. Babri, J. (1) This criminal revision has been brought against the order dated May 10, 1979, of an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by which he had directed the framing of charges against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(l)(a) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.(2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had returned to India by Lufthansa Flight No. 645 on January 3, 1974. On arrival at the airport, the petitioner presented himself for Customs clearance and declared that his unaccompanied baggage from Hongkong contained one tape-recorder with two speakers which is yet to arrive and he obtained a landing certificate from the Customs officials. Two packages had arrived at Palam Airport by the same flight in which the petitioner had come and those packages were stated to contain the personal effects of the petitioner.(3) On January 4, 1974, two more packages of the petitioner, which ...
Rajiv Wadhwa Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT381; 1990(18)DRJ105
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been brought seeking quotient of detention order dated May 19, 1989, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act'), with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange.(2) Various grounds have been urged in support of the petition but it is not necessary to deal with all those grounds because this writ petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground.(3) It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner bad made a representation dated June 15, 1989 and the same came to be rejected after about 40 days and there had taken place unexplained and inordinate delay in considering his representation which vitiates his continued detention.(4) In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri A.K. Batabyal, Joint Secretary, Govern...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Orissa Ceramic Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC129Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the refund claim of the Respondent is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Respondent Company, a small scale unit, manufactures refractory products falling under Tariff Item 68 GET. The Company was held to be entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty during the year from 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1980 under Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979, as their capital investment on plant and machinery did not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs and the value of clearances during the year 1978-79 did not exceed Rs. 30 lakhs and did not exceed Rs. 15 lakhs during 1979-80.3. The Respondent submitted its refund claim for the year 1979-80 on 27-12-1980 which was rejected by the Assistant Collector as barred by limitation, having been filed after the expiry of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. The Collector (Appeals), however, set aside the order of the loweir authority on the basis that limitation is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »