Delhi Court April 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.
Shambhu Nath Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)Crimes528; 38(1989)DLT192
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this petition under Article 225 of the Constitution, Shambhu Nath Singh seeks setting aside of the order passed against him on 6th July, 1988 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (for short 'the Ordinance') by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Shri K. L. Verma, the specially empowered officer under the Ordinance, made the order against the detenu with a view to preventing him from engaging in transportation of narcotic drugs. Along with the impugned order grounds of detention also dated the 6th july, 1988 were served on the detenu on 7th July, 1988 at Central Jail where he was lodged as an under-trial. In paragraph 13 of the grounds he was informed by the detaining authority that :- 'YOU have right to make representation against the order or detention to the detaining authority and/or to the Central Government and you may address it to the undersigned or to the Secr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electric Construction and Equipment Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR617(Delhi)
Mrs. Leila Seth, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has moved this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the issue of a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and to refer the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and deleting the addition of Rs. 2,98,837 on account of commission paid 2. Whether. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) thereby confirming the deletion of Rs. 15,35,411 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79. The assessed claimed deduction of Rs. 5,90,469 as commission paid to various parties. The Income-tax Officer, by his order dated September 1, 1983, disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,98,837 as it held, inter alia, that there was ...
Man Chand Dhiman and Co. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR40(Delhi); 39(1989)DLT3
G.C. Jain, J.(1) Partnership firm, M/s. Mam Chand Dhiman and Company, the petitioner, entered into an agreement No. EE/IV/Agt. 20/79-80 for the construction of two lane bridge of Arterial High Way at R.D. 10330 M of Trunk Drain No. I with the Union of India, respondent No. 1. The agreement admittedly contained an arbitration clause (Clause No. 29). Certain disputes arose between the parties. In accordance with the arbitration agreement the same were referred by the persona designata, the Chief Engineer (I & F), Delhi Administration, respondent No. 2, to the sole arbitrator Sh.Kishan Chand, respondent No. 3 vide memo dated 13th August, 1985 for decision. The learned arbitrator entered upon the reference vide his letter dated 21st August, 1985.(2) During the pendency of the petition, on 15th November, 1985 the petitioner requested the Chief Engineer respondent No. 2, also to refer its claim in respect of interest at the rate of 20, p.a. (compound) pre-suit, pendente lite and future, to t...
income-tax Officer Vs. Mohan MeakIn Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD187(Delhi)
ORDERPer Agarwal, J. M. - 1 and 2 [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.]3. The first ground raised in the Revenues appeal is as under :'The CIT [Appeals] was not correct in law and in facts in directing the ITO to allow the alleged liability of Rs. 18,64,000 in respect of provision for leave encashment.'By application dated 9-12-1988, the Revenue has raised the following additional grounds pertaining to the aforesaid ground No. 1 :-'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT [Appeals] erred in not recording the reason as required mandatorily under ruler 46A [2] of the IT Rules.2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the CIT [Appeals] erred in taking cognizance of the actuarial report before getting it examined by the expert.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT [Appeals] erred in replying on the actuarial report which is based on surmises, conjectures and suppositions not supported by any material on r...
Dinanath and anr. Vs. Des Raj and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC154
S.B. Wad, J.1. This appeal is filed by Dina Nath, the owner of offending vehicle No. DLG 9246 which caused multiple injuries to the petitioner Des Raj (here respondent No. 1) in an accident caused on 16th December 1968 on Najafgarh Road. Appellant No. 2 is the M/s Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. which is no more in existence after the nationalization of the insurance companies.2. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the said truck No. DLG 9246 and awarded a sum of Rs. 32,000/- as compensation. The injured/claimant was 46 years old at the time of accident and his income was Rs. 225/- per month. He was working with one Modern Electrical Manufacturing Corporation. It is an admitted fact that after the accident, he was not taken up on duty by the manufacturer.3. After the accident the injured claimant was taken up to Willingdon Hospital in an unconscious state. Dr. K.N. Jain, who attended on him had found that he was bleeding from his left ear and ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. D.C.M.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT271TriDel
1.1 The respondent company filed a refund claim for Rs. 4106.85p with the concerned Assistant Collector on 26-9-1980 for duty paid on cotton fabrics cleared on 17-6-1980. The grounds of the claim were that the company cleared a quantity 19932 sq. meters of cloth after payment of excise duty, this was delivered to M/s. Textile Finishers for raising and then received back in the respondent company's factory for printing. The printed fabric thereafter was cleared on payment of duty. The respondent company submitted D-3 declarations for receiving the duty paid goods for undertaking the process specified in Rule 173-L. The refund claim was, however, rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the condition of processes spelt out in Rule 173-L has not been complied with and therefore, the refund claim was inadmissible inasmuch as a totally new process i.e. of printing was undertaken and it could not be said a process of remaking, refining, reconditioning or subjecting the goods i...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Manmohan Lal Rais (Huf)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)29ITD47(Delhi)
1. These are departmental appeals. The point which is common to all the years, is as to whether the learned AAC was justified in excluding the sale proceeds of agricultural land valuing Rs. 5,29,375 from the wealth of the assessee HUP.2. The relevant facts may be noted. On 5-2-1969, property of the family situated at Sanai Khoja near Faridabad was settled amongst the family members, whereby the assessee was to get 4/10 share in the said property as his share. The assessee son Vikram Lal was to get 3/10 share and Smt. Brinda Lal was to get the remaining share. A declaratory suit in terms of the said settlement was filed before the Sub-Judge, 1st Class on 19-2-1970 and a consent decree, dated 20-2-1970, was obtained. The said property was later sold on 27-2-1970 and the sale proceed were actually distributed amongst the above three persons in the above proportion. The said persons invested the said sale proceeds in the purchase of the shares of Eicher Tractors in their individual names ...
Bharat Furnishing Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR46(Delhi); 1989(17)DRJ30
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner was awarded tender for providing and fixing door shutters in 201 DU's AGD-IV as per agreement No. 5/PE/AGD IV/81-82. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and since under the general terms and conditions of the contract, the disputes have to be resolved by arbitration, the disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 made his award on 12th August 1986 which was filed in this Court. (2) The respondent - Delhi Development Authority filed objections to the award under Sections 15, 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. By this order, I shall dispose of the objections filed by the respondent. (3) The parties were permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective cases by means of affidavits. Accordingly, affidavits have been filed by the parties. (4) It was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent - D.D.A. that under Clause 25 of the agreement, the arbitrator was under an obligatio...
Indian Textile Paper Tube Company Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC47Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal from the Order-in-Appeal No. 99/85 (CBE) dated 6-6-85 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras.2. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to set out the facts in any great detail. In brief, the appellants, during the material time, had two factories in Tamilnadu, one located at Coimbatore and the other located at Virudhunagar, in the jurisdiction of two different Collector of Central Excise. The grievances of the appellants was against the classification of paper tubes in respect of their Virudhunagar factory and, accordingly, while paying duty in accordance with the directions of the authorities, the appellants did so by lodging a protest. Similar goods were being manufactured by the Coimbatore factory in respect of which the appellants did not lodge a similar protest. Perhaps, this was under the impression that since both the factories were owned by the same company, a separate protest was not necessary. There is no disp...
Monica Enterprises and 4 ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC518Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals arise out of a common order-in-original and they relate to common issues. These have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case as slated in the impugned order arc, in brief, as follows: (i) On the basis of information that the import of goods covered by 10 bills of entry of the following firms as detailed below were in violation of Import Trade Control regulations and the goods were misdeclared regarding value, quantity and description thereof, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras recovered triplicate copies of 10 bills of entry from M/s. Nirmal Sea Freight Pvt. Ltd., Madras Custom House Agents on 18.3.1986: (i). M/s. Alconic International Merchandise, H-328, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. (iii). M/s. Shivam Electronics, 69-04, Nabikarim, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, (iv). M/s. Monica Enterprises, Blk Nil-36-B, First Floor, Malvia Nagar, New Delhi-110012. (v). M/s. Cosmopolitan Electron...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »