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.
K.B. Mathur Vs. Sheel Kumar Saxena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT179
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Shri Sheel Kumar Saxena (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), is the owner of the premise bearing no.. C-16, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. He filed a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity u/s 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, against Shri K B. Mathur, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) in respect of ground floor portion of the main Bungalow comprising three bed rooms, one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen, lavatories, verandah, lawn and open compound on the back. The tenant cont(2) In support of his case the respondent-landlord examined himself and Shri Raj Pal Singh from the office of the Commissioner of Police to prove that the respondent has retired from Police service w.e.f. 31st March, 1983 and he Is required to vacate the government accommodation by 30tSeptember, 1984. (3) The petitioner produced three witnesses, besides appearing as his own witness. In order to succeed, the respon...
JyotIn Vyas Vs. Union of India and 2 ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2235; ILR1989Delhi248
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) (RULE D.B.).-By this petition, Jyotin Vyas who has been preventively detained, challenges the order of detention made by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, a specially empowered officer under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic, in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) on 6th July, 1988. The said order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in possession, sale and purchase of psychotropic substances. The impugned order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu while he was in judicial custody in Central Jail, Tihar.(2) To appreciate the contentions urged before us, a few may be noticed.(3) On a secret information received by the Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, the godown of M/s. Delhi-Kanpur-Gondia Transport Company, Delhi was searched on 5th August, 1987 and two packages containing in all 50,000 Prod...
Raj Nigam Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC499Tri(Delhi)
1. The department's case in this matter is that appellants, who are manufacturers of Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Sheets, cleared some 133873 Kgs. of the product from 15.9.78 to 25.8.80 for which they were required to pay Central Excise duty @ Rs. 450/- per M.T. with a set off of Rs.100/- per M.T., the benefit of which was available to them under a particular notification. Actually, however, the party availed of a set off of Rs. 330/- per M.T. paying Central Excise duty @ Rs. 120/- per M.T. The department, therefore, raised a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 32,826.64 (Basic Duty) and Rs.1,860.94 (Special Central Excise Duty). This demand, which was confirmed by the Asstt. Collector in the Order-in-original was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). It is against this order that appellants are before us.2. We have heard Shri N.Singh, Consultant, on behalf of the appellants and Shri J.N. Nigam, SDR, on behalf of the department.3. At the very out-set) the learned consultant submits that the ap...
Jhalani Tools (i) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD81(Delhi)
1. These are in all 12 cross Reference Applications of the department and the assessee. The assessment years involved are 1979-80 to 1982-83.These applications arise out of the Tribunal's orders dated 25-3-1988 for Assessment Year 1979-80 and three other separate orders, all dated 18-7-1988, for the Asstt. Years 1980-81 to 1982-83.2. The assessee is M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly M/s.Gedore Tools (India) (P.) Ltd.), Gedore House, 51-52 Nehru Place, New Delhi. It is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing hand tools, most of which are exported. For the Asstt.Years 1979-80 and 1980-81 the Appellate Tribunal had not upheld the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under the following heads (the amounts are different for the two years in question and are not being mentioned here): - (e) Forwarding charges on export consignment; (f) Inspection fee on exports; The Appellate Tribunal, following the decision of the Special Bench in the case of J.H....
A.E.E. Pilot Workshop Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC320Tri(Delhi)
1. A.E.E. Pilot Workshop, a unit of Punjab State Electricity Board, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Appellant M/s. A.E.E. Pilot Workshop, a Unit of Punjab State Electricity Board which is engaged in the generation of electricity and they also manufacture PCC Poles. PCC Poles fall under item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The appellant did not take out any Central Excise licence and on 13th September, 1983 a continent of Central Excise Preventive staff had made a surprise visit and found that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of PCC Poles and poes numbering 7825 were found lying in the factory which were seized by the visiting officers and the value worked out to Rs. 16,82,375/-at Rs. 215 per pole. A show cause notice was issued for the period 1st April, 1983 to 19th September, 1983 on 4th October, 1983. 1 he appellant was also asked to show ca...
Nb/Sub Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1986; 1990(2)Crimes370; 38(1989)DLT19
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeks an order of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the order of Confirming Authority passed as a revision order on 20th July, 1984, the judgment and order of the General Court-martial in pursuance to the directions given in the aforesaid order whereby the petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and also ordered to be dismissed from service, announced on 7th August, 1984 and the order of the Confirming Authority passed second time on 27th November, 1984. 2. The petitioner pleads that after certain years in service, he was selected and promoted as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the rank of Naib Subedar, and had always earned commendatory remarks in annual assessments. It is alleged that while he was posted in January, 1982 as Platoon Commander of DSC Platoon No. 313 and attached to Engineer Stores Dep...
Anil Kumar Kakkar Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: 1989(17)DRJ51
H.C. Goel, J.(1) This is a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned order dated 3rd June 1988 passed by Shri N.K. Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, directing that the Maruti Car No. DDD-119 in question which is the case property of the case Fir No. 14 of 1988 of P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi, be: handed over to Miss Kitty Mehta, complainant, on sapurdari on her finishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000.00 pending the decision of the case. Miss Kitty Mehta had purchased the vehicle in question from one M/s Agnail Motors, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, against her father's booking allotment after the later's death, being his nominee. She lodged a report with the said police station alleging that on 18-10-1987 Seema, elder sister of the complainant Kitty Mehta, accompanied by Anil Kakkar, accused-petitioner went to see a film at Palace Cinema Delhi, Seema went to purchase cinema tickets leaving Anil Kakkar sitting ...
Ram Singh Manmohan Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas416(Delhi); 1990CriLJ1228; 38(1989)DLT265
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the authority of the Assistant Collector (Preventive). Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh, to issue warrants for the search of the house of the petitioner, and the competency of the Deputy Collector to order confiscation of ornaments or to impose the personal penalty. (2) The circumstances leading to the search of the premises of petitioner no. 2 and the consequent recovery of the gold ornaments are not in dispute, 0n 27th September, 1974, armed with the authority of the search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector (Preventive) Central excise Collectorate, Chandigarh, Shri Kishan Singh Inspector, Customs & Excise conducted the search of the house of the petitioner in the presence of two witnesses. He prepared the Panchnama (Ex. P-1). On that very day, the statement of S. Ram Singh, petitioner no. 2 was recorded. On 18th February. 1975. the Debuty Collector of the Central Excise issued notice to the petitioner ...
G.R. Newar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)Crimes650; 38(1989)DLT260
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges his detention vide order dated 7th July 1988 passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, as an officer india empowered in this behalf under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Ordinance, 1988 (for short the 'Ordinance'). (2) As a sequel to recovery of 3 packages received at Calcutta on 5th August, 1987 under one consignment note from Delhi, the police registered a case against Govind Ram Newar (petitioner herein), the consignor as also against the consignee of the said goods. He bad been arrested earlier by the West Bengal Police, in another cases registered under Section 22/29 of Ndps Act. It appears from .the grounds of detention that the petitioner was released on bail on 22nd September, 1987, under orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ca...
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi357
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks an order of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the order of Confirming Authority passed as a revision order on 20th July, 1984, the judgment 'end order of the General Court Martial in pursuance to the directions given in the aforesaid order whereby the petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment fo18 months and also ordered to be dismissed from service, announced on 7th A.igbst, 1984 and the order of the Confirming Authority passed second time on 27th November, 1984.(2) The petitioner pleads that after certain years in, service, he was selected and promoted as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the rank of Naib Subedar, and had always earned commendatory remarks in annual assessments. It is alleged that while he was posted, in January, 1982 as Platoon Commander of Dsc Platoon No. 313 and att...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »