Delhi Court March 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.
Bharat Sevak Samaj Vs. Sheo Shankar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1989
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi174
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Plaintiff in both suits is Bharat Sevak Samaj (For short 'BSS'). Suit No. 2187188 has been filed through Shree Ram Tiwari as General Secretary of B.S.S. and in this order. l. willdescribe.plaintiff of this suit as B.S.S.(T) Suit No. 2200/88 -has been filed through Sheo Stiankar Singh (for short 'Singh') as General Secretary of B.S.S. and in this order I will describe plaintiff of this suit as B.S.S.(S). (2) B.S.S. is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was registered in the year 1952. Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru was its founder President and Shri Gulzari Lal Nanda was founder Chairman of B.S.S. As the name itself suggests, it was service oriented organisation. The B.S.S. has laudable objects. Its object are to find and develop avenues of voluntary service for the citizens of India; to promote national sufficiency and build up the economic strength of the country; to promote the social and moral well being of community and to mitigate ...
Continental Engg. Industries (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC54Tri(Delhi)
1. This is originally a revision application transferred to the Tribunal as an appeal under the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act.The revision application was filed against an order-in-appeal passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which has confirmed the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda.1.2. In the course of checks by the Central Excise Officers on 22-7-1978 it was revealed that the appellant company was engaged in manufacture of textile machinery parts and accessories falling under Tariff Item 68. Earlier the company had held an L-4 licence for manufacture of the said goods. From January 1977 it availed of exemption from duty on the ground that the total number of workers employed by it was less than 50. Since the basis of exemption underwent a change in Notification 176/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 to the aggregate clearances of a factory during the preceding financial yea...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Prestige Engineering (India)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC171
1. These six appeals are filed by the depart ment against a common impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The original matters relate to seven refund claims of the respondent company herein for different periods filed by them subsequent to the Tribunal's order No. 315/86D dated 21 order the Tribunal had held that the repairing of cops which are old and unserviceable would net amount to manufacture of cops attracting excise duty. Removal of old and unserviceable parts of cops and their replacement by new parts in themselves was equated to retreading of old and unserviceable tyres or reshelling of old and unserviceable roller shafts which were held in earlier decisions as not amounting to manufacture. In respect of other matters involved before the Tribunal the matter had been remanded to the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut for de novo adjudication in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in the said order. That de novo adjudication order is...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Narang Industries Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: (1989)29ITD522(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 1-5-1985 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, New Delhi (Shri R.S. Rathore). They involve a common ground and, therefore, they are consolidated and disposed of by this common order.2. Common ground - The revenue has grievance against deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,37,837 (out of addition Rs. 5,19,443 made on a/c. of excess breakage/damaged bottles ; and the assessee has appealed against partial relief sustaining balance. This common ground concerns the claim in respect of breakage in empty bottles, shown in the consumption of stores and spares vide Schedule 13 appearing on page 28 of the audited accounts.2.1 The Assessing Officer found that breakage of bottles as claimed was highly excessive. After considering the relevant facts the claim of breakage of bottles at 5 per cent of the consumption shown in respect of bottles of 750 ml. (mililitres) size was adopted for allowance. One of the factors considered b...
Ceekay Grease and Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)ARBLR415(Delhi); 39(1989)DLT116
C.L. Chaodhry, J. (1) The petitioner was awarded the contract for the supply of grease to Union of India. Certain disputes arose between the parties out of the execution of the contract. The Director General, Supplies and Disposal, New Delhi appointed an Arbitrator and referred the disputes and differences between the parties for adjudication. The learned Arbitrator entered upon the reference and made and published his award on 26.11 1984.The operative portion of the award reads as under :- 'I dismiss the claim of the contractor for Rs. 1,33,496.50 (Rupees one lakh thirty three thousand four hundred ninety six and paise fifty only), as increase in Excise Duty and for Rs. 16,274,00 (Rupees Sixteen thousand two hundred seventy four only) as price increase.I also direct Union of India to pay the contractor, the amount of security deposit and balance price, withheld, in this case.All other claims of the parties are hereby dismissed.The parties shall bear their respective costs of the proce...
Rajesh JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes462; 38(1989)DLT247; 1989(17)DRJ121
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this petition Rajesh Jain the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated the 26th August 1988 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (for short the Ordinance) passed against him by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner (detenue) from abetting in the export from India of narcotic drugs. The detenue is further challenging the declaration under Section 10(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Narcotic Drugs Act) dated 29th September 1988 made by Shri K. J. Raman Additional Secretary to the Government of India.(2) At the outset, we may notice that the impugned order is successive order of detention. The first order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smu...
Parasmal JaIn @ Shanti Lal JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes324; 38(1989)DLT140; 1989(25)LC439(Delhi)
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The petitioner. Parasmal Jain @ Shanti Lal Jain, detained pursuant to an order of detention, passed on 18th of July 1988 by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, by virtue of powers, conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (for short 'the Act'), challenges his detention by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the aforesaid order of detention, and directing his release. (2) The petitioner was placed under detention, on 29th July, 1988, in execution of the aforesaid detention order, passed as a sequel to recovery of Rs. 11 lakhs on 24th March 1988, from a room in Pamba Tourist Home, Ernakulam which was allegedly in possession of the petitioner. (3) The challenge to the detent...
NaraIn Devi and ors. Vs. Swaran Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC116
S.B. Wad, J.1. In an accident, which took place on 6-1-69 Shri Duli Chand who was traveling in Tempo Vehicle No. DLL 3939 died due to impact caused by Truck No. PNF 4979 and also by Truck No. PNE 6300. It appears from the vehicle inspection report that the front truck and the tempo struck each other head on and the rear truck No. PNE 6300 got involved because of the impact. The Tribunal has found that there was composite negligence on the part of the front truck No. DLL 3939 and the rear truck No. PNE 6300. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,440/- as compensation to the claimants. The claimants are the widow and five children and the father of the deceased.2. The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company with whom the rear truck No. PNE 6300 was insured as filed the cross-objection submitting that the Tribunal has not properly judged the role of the said truck only because the driver of the truck was not examined and has held that there was composite negligence of both the truck. Counsel ...
Vasantlal Becharlal Kamdar Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC274
S.B. Wad, J.1. The claimant suffered injuries in an accident caused on 25-4-71, when Truck No. DLG 4127 hit the appellant's car No. DLJ 7597. The injuries are fully described in the Award and need not be restated. The appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 2.25 lakhs towards compensation while the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 22,100/-. Hence, this appeal for enhancement of compensation.2. The principal ground of challenge in this appeal that the Tribunal has not appreciated and considered the loss of service and earning capacity due to the injuries suffered by the appellant. His further plea is that the Tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion that his services were terminated because of the injuries suffered by him, but because the company in which he was working, viz. Chemoleum Corporation had stopped its business in India. I have been taken through the evidence of PW/5, Shri K.S. Venkataramni, who was a stenographer in the office in which the appellant was working as well as his own ...
L.M.L. Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1989
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT534TriDel
1. In the Misc. Order No. M-32/89-D dated 9-3-1989 this Tribunal has recorded that when the appeal came up for hearing for the first time on 30-8-1988, Shri Santhanam, General Manager (Legal) of M/s LML Limited said that the matter was covered by the Tribunal's Order No.160-161/88-D dated 17-2-1988 and he handed over a copy of the said order. Shri L.C. Chakraborty learned DR wanted time to study further.The matter was, therefore, adjourned to the next date. When the matter came up again for hearing on 1-9-1988, Shri Chakraborty submitted that the matter was fully covered in favour of the appellants vide the order of the Tribunal cited by Shri Santhanam. Accordingly, the operative part of the order, which was to follow was orally pronounced by the Bench in the open court allowing the appeal. However, at the time of dictating the judgment, it appeared that prima-facie the issue in the present appeal was different from the issue which was decided in the order of this Tribunal relied upon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »