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.
Ram Singh Manmohan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT247(Del)
M.K. Chawla, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has 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 Dy. 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. On 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 and 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 Deputy Collector of the Central Excise issued notice to the petitioner ...
Khanna Builders Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)ARBLR137(Delhi); 38(1989)DLT297; 1989(17)DRJ123
Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. The petitioner was awarded the work for providing drainage arrangements in the Northern Colony at SSB within the operational jurisdiction of Northern Railway, New Delhi vide telegram dated 22nd July 1981. A formal agreement was executed between Northern Railway and the petitioner on 25th November 1981. The work was to be completed by 22nd January 1982. However since some difficulties cropped up, on the request of the petitioner, the time was extended to 15th March 1982. Vide letter dated 18th March 1982, the petitioner informed to Railway Authority that the work had been completed and requested the authorities to prepare the final bill for payment of the dues. The Railway Authorities however on 20th April 1982 wrote a letter to the petitioner that the work had not been completed and had in fact been abandoned by the petitioner and the railways had thereforee decided to terminate the contract and get the balance work done departmentally at the risk and costs of th...
Chandro Devi and Others Vs. Jit Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1989
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas149(Delhi)
S. N. Sapra, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), against the order dated August 22, 1975 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. 2. Smt. Chandro Devi, appellant No. 1 and appellants Nos. 2 to 6 are the unfortunate widow and children respectively of deceased Bhartu. The facts in brief are as under: Shri Bhartu, son of Shri Shera, was residing in village Teha Tehsil Sonepat, Haryana, along with his family. On the night of July 7/8, 1968, Shri Bhartu, now deceased, was coming in motor truck No. PNF-8204 driven by Jit Singh, respondent as owner of his goods consisting of vegetables from his village to Subzi Market, Delhi on G.T. Road. When the truck was near mile stone No. 14 on the Grand Trunk Road, another truck, bearing registration No. PNQ-2409, being driven by respondent Sucha Singh, was coming from Delhi and both the vehicles collided with each other and overturned re...
Fahmida Abdul Hai Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC77
1. The question to be decided by us in this Misc. Application is whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal filed by the applicant against the order-in-appeal No. 1826/88 Bagg (File No. S/49-588/88-B dated nil (in column No. 2 of the C.A. 3 Form it is stated that the orderin-appeal was issued on 10-10-1988 and received by the appellant after 18-10-1988) passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. If the goods involved in this proceeding are treated as "Baggages", this Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to decide the appeal, but if the goods are other than "Baggages" then this Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to decide the appeal.2. We have heard Shri U .K. Sharma for the applicant and Smt V. Zutshi for the respondent. Shri Sharma has argued that Section 2(22) of the Customs Act, 1962 defined goods, which, inter-alia, include baggage.According to Section 2(3) "Baggage" includes unaccompanied baggage but does not include motor vehicles. The ter...
Swastik Insulated Wires and Vs. Collector of C. Ex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC91
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Patna. The point for consideration, in this appeal, is whether the bare aluminium strips stated to be of electrical grade manufactured as an intermediate product by the appellants out of aluminium wires for ultimate manufacture of paper covered, aluminium conductor would be assessable under Tariff Item 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff or not.2. The learned Collector, after taking into consideration the pleas of the appellants, has held that the goods squarely fell within the ambit of Tariff Item 27(b) applicable at the relevant time. The Tariff entry 27(b), for convenience of reference, is reproduced below: "27(b) - Manufactures, the following, namely, plates, sheets, circles, strips, shapes and sections, in any form or size, not otherwise specified." The learned Collector has also ruled as to the basis of the value to be adopted and has restricted the demand for six months.3. The learned consultant, for the appe...
Singh Enterprises (Exports) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD209(Delhi)
ORDERPer Grover, Judicial Member - In this appeal the contention is that, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax Central-III, New Delhi, dated 21-11-1985 in respect of assessment year 1980-81 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be quashed and the appellant- assessed company be treated as an industrial company for the purposes of determining the tax rate applicable to it.2. The contention raised above and the related question is interesting because of peculiar features, facts and circumstance of the case.3. The assessed company filed its return on 27th of June, 1980 declaring income at Rs. 6,40,724 claiming the status as industrial company. The business was that of manufacture and exported of readymade garments.4. While processing the return since the Income-tax Officer proposed assessment on income which exceeded the returned figure by more than Rs. 1,00,000 draft assessment order was communicated in the assessed on 23rd of March, 1983 and after receiving ...
Smt. Dropadi Devi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi87
ORDER1. The main question which arises in this suit, filed nearly 29 years ago, is as to whether the immovable property known as 3, Mansingh Road, New Delhi belonging to late Maharaja Jagatjit Singh, the erstwhile ruler of Kapurthala State, as his personal property at the time when the said Kapurthala State, along with other States, acceded to and merged in the Union of India in the year 1948. 2. This suit was filed by Radhasham Makhanlal Seksaria for a declaration that he was the sole and absolute owner of the aforesaid immovable property and was entitled to exercise all rights of ownership in respect thereof. Union of India has been imp leaded as defendant 1 while State of Punjab has been imp leaded as defendant 2 and Sukhjit Singh, grandson of late Maharaja Jagatjit Singh, is the third defendant. 3. The facts as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint are, as follows: (a) By Indenture of Lease dt.13th July, 1921 a plot of land measuring 3.04 acres situated at 3, Man Singh Road, New D...
Moorti Devi and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC135
S.B. Wad, J.1. In an accident caused on 22-3-73 by truck No. PUF 1831, belonging to respondent No. 1, one Ram Dia, who was going on a cycle, was crushed under the Truck. The Tribunal found that it was a case of contributory negligence, the deceased cyclist being liable for 25% and the offending truck 75%. The Tribunal then made an Award of Rs. 18,630/- in favor of the claimants. The claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. There is a cross-objection filed on behalf of the respondents praying that the cyclist should be held 100% responsible for the accident in which he died.2. The claimants have examined two witnesses who are eye witnesses, viz. PW/4 Anand Singh and PW/5 Hari Singh. The respondents have not examined any witness, not even the driver of the offending vehicle. The relative position of the cyclist and the truck at the time of the accident is fairly clear from the site plan produced as well the evidence of the witnesses. The deceased was coming from ...
institute of Marketing Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD616(Delhi)
1. This second appeal is directed against the order dated 24-3-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A)-IX, New Delhi in respect of assessment year 1984-85. The primary contention in ground No. 1 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was not entitled to total exemption under the provision of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of its total income derived during the accounting period ending 30-9-1983. The alternative contentions are that it has been wrongly held by the CIT(A) that, (a) the activities carried on by the assessee trust were business activities yielding profits and gains within the meaning of the provisions of Section 11 (4A) of the Act and that consequently a sum of Rs. 13,46,203 was income chargeable to tax, rejecting the assessee's claim that it was not carrying on any activity other than that for the purposes of advancement of its objects and general public utility; (b) alternatively and without prejudice to the above the ...
Uttam Chand Vs. Ramkishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: 1989(17)DRJ38; 1989RLR257
Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) This is plaintiff's revision directed against the order dt, 19.7.86 of Shri Nand Kishore. Sub Judge, whereby the application of the defendant-filed under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the w/s was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 250.00 as costs. (2) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. After giving my considered thought to the matter before me, I have come to the conclusion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. (3) Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale of suit property in 1971 on the ground that the defendant had agreed to sell the same to him vide agreement dated 20.10.1958 and in furtherance thereof had already delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff & had reed, part payment & deposited balance with the Deptt. of Rehabilitation. The defendant filed w/s in 1972 and in due course e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »