Delhi Court February 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.
S.V. Khadekar Vs. Shri Ram Scientific Industrial Research Foundation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT10
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Along with the main S.A.O., the appellants have filed this application (CM 39/89) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condensation of delay in refiling this appeal. Even though the delay is not mentioned in number of days, but it is pointed out that it is more than Ii months in refiling the appeal. This application is supported by the affidavit of counsel for the appellant. The delay is sought to be explained that the file of the case was misplaced in the bundle of decided cases and came to the knowledge of the counsel only after some files were required to be discovered from those papers. (2) The contention is that originally the appeal was filed within limitation but it was returned for removing certain objections and thereafter the file was misplaced and the appeal could not be filed within the time allowed. The further contention is that once the appeal has been filed within the limitation then the refiling of the appeal cannot be dismissed as time-barr...
Narender Tyagi Vs. Vijay Karan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)Crimes214; 38(1989)DLT29
G.C. Jain, J.(1) Narender Tyagi alias Baboo, the petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order of his detention under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 made on May 13, 1988 by the Commissioner of Police Delhi, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, This order was served on the petitioner on May 16, 1988 and since then he is detained in the Tihar Jail, New Delhi. (2) The grounds of detention served on the petitioner state that he was an active, desperate criminal who had indulged in the acts of murder. attempt to murder, planning for dacoity, illegal tresspass, criminal intimidation and offences punishable under the Arms Act. The petitioner was involved in the following criminal cases in the Union Territory of Delhi :- (1)F.I.R. No. 850, dated 13th October, 1986 under section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi, On Octob...
Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC339Tri(Delhi)
1. This Appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No S/10-44/85 LSIIB dated 14.6.85 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the appellants), imported at the Port of Bombay 480 bundles of timber valued at Rs.41,33,504 c.i.f. by the vessel M.V. HOEGH DRAKE. The said timber was stated to be required for manufacture of cooling towers for supply to Hazira Project of Krishak Bharat Co-operative Ltd., Surat, an I.D.A.aided Project. The appellants' Custom House Agent presented a home consumption Bill of Entry No.l 141/12 and 1141/13 for clearance of the goods. Three imprest licences and three duty exemption entitlement certificates (DEEC) books were also produced to cover the goods. The Customs authorities undertook certain investigations and, as a result, alleged that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section lll(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 ...
State Bank of India Vs. Indian Apparel Industries and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi297; [1992]73CompCas459(Delhi); 1990(18)DRJ17
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The plaintiff-bank has filed this suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,25,801.02. Defendant No. 1-firm, it is claimed in the plaint, was the sole proprietary concern of Major R. S. Chadha, since deceased. Major Chadha who died before institution of the suit, according to the plaintiff, had taken from it certain loans. Defendant No. 2(a) us the daughter of Major R. S. Chadha; defendant No. 2(b) is his mother; defendant No. 3 is his father and defendant No. 4 is his brother. Defendants Nos. 2(a) and (b) have been imp leaded as surviving class I legal heirs of the deceased major R. S. Chadha. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 have been imp leaded by the plaintiff alleging that the said defendants are intermeddling with the estate and are functioning as de facto administrators of the estate of the late Major R. S. Chadha who expired on December 23, 1982, and that the plaintiff understands that they are in possession of his estate. Paras 3 and 4 of the plaint read as under : '3. Defen...
Ashok Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi286
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The detenu, Ashok Gupta is seeking quashing of the detention order dated the 13th October, 1988 passed by Shri K. L. Verma, a specially empowered Officer under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, the Act). This order was made with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods. The grounds of detention also dated the 13th October, 1988, were served on him on 14th October, 1988 while he was in detention in Tihar Jail, New Delhi. (2) At the outset it may be noticed that this is the second lime that the petitioner is being detained under the provisions of the Act. The earlier order of detention passed on 8th March, 1988 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and engaging in keeping smuggled goods, was quashed by this court on June 10, 1988 in Cr. Writ Petition No. 180 of 1988. The case of the respondents in a nut shell is that the impugned detention order is not based on...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Petrochemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC326
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. M-1632/BD-735/86 dated 30-1-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, whereby he set aside the Order-in-Original dated 31-10-1985, passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, and upheld the respondents' claim for classification of their product "Heavy Normal Paraffins" ("HNPs" for short) under Item 7 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ("CET" for short) and not under Item 68 of the Schedule, as ordered by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) further directed consequential relief to the respondents.2. We have heard Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, JDR, for the appellant-Collector and Shri N.V. Raghavan Iyer, for the respondents.3. M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (the respondents) filed a classification list on 20-3-1982 for their products including Heavy Normal Paraffins (HNPs). This classification list was filed persuant to the changes made in the ...
Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC359Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 8/86 Pune, dated 17.6.86 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Swastik Rubber Products Limited, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against the Order-in-Original dated 29.11.85 passed by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune, demanding Rs. 2,38,436.29 being the customs duty on certain warehoused goods, under the provisions of Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1.11.84.2. The facts of the case, briefly slated, are that the appellants were licensed under Section 58 of the Act to deposit, without payment of duty, dutiable goods imported by them. Accordingly, they had imported and warehoused certain chemicals under Section 61 of the Act. A part of the goods was cleared over a period of time for home consumption on payment of duty chargeable thereon. A part of the goods, however, remained...
Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT388TriDel
These are: (i) Whether two exemption Notifications issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules can be availed of simultaneously or whether the licensee is entitled to avail of only either one of them; (ii) What is the correct meaning of the words "at the rate specified in the said First Schedule..." occurring in the Notification No. 259/83, dated 15.10.83.2. The facts that gave rise to these questions are, briefly, that the appellants among other goods manufactured vanaspati falling under Tariff Item 13 of the Central Excise Tariff at the relevant time. The Central Government by Notification No. 24/65-CE as amended by Notification No. 17/69 granted unconditional exemption to vanaspati products from payment of Excise duty in excess of 5% ad valorem. The Central Govt. on 15.10.83 issued another exemption Notification No.259/83 under Rule 8 granting exemption to vegetable product produced either solely from indigenous rice bran oil (RBO) mixed with other oils subject to the satisfact...
Shakti Trading Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC240Tri(Delhi)
1. The Ld. advocate Shri R.L. Vohra appearing for the applicant/appellant states that the impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- in aggregate under different rules. It also demands duty of Rs. 1,58,815/- on the value of goods alleged to have been clandestinely cleared without payment of duty. In addition, a duty of Rs. 3,630/- has also been demanded on the goods placed under seizure.The learned advocate has pointed out that the order is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as date and time of hearing was fixed for 25-8-1988 at 11.00 A.M. before the adjudicating authority, by a registered A.D. letter dt. 19-8-1980. This communication, according to the learned advocate was received by the appellant/applicant on 25-8-1988 itself at 3 P.M. i.e., after the expiry of time of hearing. The adjudicating authority, as urged by the learned advocate, has decided the case without knowing whether the notice of hearing has been communicated to the applicant/app...
Gurbax Bhiryani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi297
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 491/88) the petitioner, Gurbax Bhiryani, is challenging the legality of the order passed under Section 3(1) of the prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The order was passed on 14th September, 1988 by Shri K. L. Verma, a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under the Act, with a view to preventing the petitioner from abetting the export from India, of narcotic drugs. The declaration under Section 10(1) of the Act issued on 30th September, 1988 has been challenged by him in a separate writ petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 625 of 1988). (2) This judgment disposes of both the writ petiticns. (3) At the outset, we may notice that the impugned order is the second order of detention passed against the petitioner. The first order was passed on 24th May, 1988 by the said Shri K. L. Verma under the provisions...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »