Delhi Court May 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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Sun Export Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: (1989)(22)ECC329
1. Appeals 465 to 468/84C arise out of and are directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-1630/84CL, S/49-181/85CL, S/49-182/85-CL and S/49-154/85CL dated 30.9.1985 passed by the Collector of Customs, (Appeals), Bombay.Appeal No. C.1474/86 arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/5-2694/2700/85 CAP/Asst. dated 20.2.1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.2. As all these appeals involve common questions of law and facts they are clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order. The undisputed facts are M/s. Sun Export Corporation, for short "the Corporation" imported several consignments describing them in their Bills of Entry as LUTAVIT (Vitamin AD-3-Feed Grade) which were classified by the Customs for the purpose of Customs duty under the heading 29.01/45 (17) under the Customs Tariff Act and charged duty at the rate of 70% + 35% +10% c.v.d. The Corporation's contentions that the goods imported are classifiable...
Rajinder Singh @ Raju Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC249(Delhi); ILR1989Delhi188
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The petitioner, Rajinder Singh @Raju, was placed under detention in pursuance to an order of detention pasted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 13th May, 1988 in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This order was confirmed as required by the provisions of section 3(4) of the Act by the Administrator of Delhi on 24th May, 1988. (2) The facts, as set out in the writ petition, reveal that the petitioner was already in judicial custody and lodged in Tihar Jail when this order of detention was passed. While he was in judicial custody, the order of approval passed on 24th May, 1988 by the Administrator was served upon him through Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, on 26th May, 1988. However, the Administration realised the mistake and instructed the Superintendent Jail to withdraw ...
Tilak Raj Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT7
Santosh Daggal, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against dismissal of the appeal filed by the present petitioner in the court of District and Sessions Judge. Delhi, against his conviction for the offence under Section61(l)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short 'the Act') recorded by amagistrate. The trial court passed the judgment on 22.7.1978 in a case registered in 1974 and after giving separate opportunity to the convict to address arguments on the point of sentence as required by Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, held it to be a case where benefit of probation could not be given and passed a sentence of Ri for 6 months and a fine of Rs 1.000.00, sentence in default being further Ri for 2 months.This was by order recorded separately the same day.(2) The petitioner was charged with the offence under Section 6 l(l)(a)of the Act on the allegation of having been found in possession of char as weighing 3 kgs. On consideration of the prosecution evidenc...
Durga Das Uppal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT25; [1989]180ITR164(Delhi)
ORDER--Purchase of property under sale agreement and part of sale consideration paid--Appropriate authority, however, passed an order for purchase of property by Central Govt at apparent consideration--Writ thereagainst by purchaser--Interim order passedIncome Tax Act 1961 s.145 D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) By this order we propose to dispose of twoapplications, one by the petitioner (CM 5297/88) and the second by the 4threspondent (CM 5535/88).(2) The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order of the appropriate authority dated 7.11.1988 made under sub-section (1) or Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The appropriate authority is constituted under S. 269 Ub of the Act. By this order the appropriate authority held that the property in question was fit for purchase by the Central Government. The property is a plot of land bearingNo. 22, situated at Road No. 61, punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, and measures552.78 sq. yds. The petitioner as purchaser and the 4th r...
Narender Kumar Vs. Veena Dhingra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi145
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31st May, 1988 whereby a decree for Rs. 13,420 together with costs and interest @ 18% per annum from 9th October, 1985 till 31st May, 1988 was passed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-petitioner under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code The defendant reeling aggrieved has come up in revision before this court. (2) Facts giving rise to this petition are that plaintiff had filed a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. against defendant on 11-11-1985 and finding that defendant cannot be served otherwise defendant was ordered to be served by affixation. In consequence on 30th March, 1988 the court accepted service to have been effected upon defendant by pasting on 7th March. 1988. Till then no appearance had been put in by defendant. Thereafter defendant filed application putting in appearance with application for condensation of delay which were dismissed by the impugned order and t...
Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC383Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case as given in the impugned order are as follows :- 1.1. M/s. Raza Textiles Limited, Rampur (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) manufacturers of cotton fabrics falling under Tariff Item 19 of Central Excise Tariff and man-made fabrics falling under Tariff Item 22 of Central Excise Tariff are alleged to have contravened the provisions of Rule 53 read with Rules 173G(4), 9(1), 52A, 173G(1) and Rule 173F of Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as on 3rd April, 1984, the Deputy Collector (Prev.), Central Excise, Meerut and Assistant Collector (Prev.), Central Excise, Meerut assisted by the Central Preventive Officers, visited the premises of the appellants and on scrutiny of the stocks and accounts, the following irregularities were detected :- (i) The production entries in R.G. 1 register were not being made daily and were being made on the 3rd day. (ii) The appellants were obliged to maintain R.G. 1 register with separate openings with each value-slab as p...
Raju Anand Vs. Madhu Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT21; 1989RLR365
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The present Execution First Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Additional District Judge, dated 6/02/1989whereby the attached goods assest, and properties of the Judgment-debtor (Appellant before this Court) have been directed to be auctioned and the sale proceeds to be given to the decree-holder in satisfaction of the decrial amount, and if the sale proceeds of the auctioned goods are not found sufficient to meet the amount of the decree of Rs. 72,537-62?., with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per annum on this amount from the date on 14.7.86 till its realisation, then the Jud(2) The only question that revolves round for determination is the subject-matter of issue no. 2 which reads as under : 'WHETHER Raju Anand, Judgment debtor has made the payment of Rs. 72.53762P. to Shri Krishan Chander, attorney of the decree holder '(3) The controvertial document is the receipt Ex. Jdw 1/1 by which the Judgment-debtor is alleged to have made the payment of th...
Jitender Saxena and Guddu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT314
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) In this appeal Jitender Saxena @ Guddu has challenged his conviction under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and the sentence of R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs. 10.000.00 or in default further sentence of one year by Shri S.N. Kapur, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, vide judgment and order dated 21st December, 1988. (2) The facts in brief relevant for the decision of this appeal are as under: F.I.R.No. 128/87 was recorded at P.S. Mandir Marg at 12.45 A.M. during the night between 3rd and 4th of April 1987 under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code on the basis of a written statement by Simon Jacobi which she had handed over to S.I. Ran Singh of P.S. Mandir Marg. The investigation of this case was entrusted to S.I. Ran Singh. The complainant had alleged of being raped by two persons and one of them was stated to be Guddu.(3) During the investigation of his case S.I. Ran Singh was accompanied by other police officials when he received a secret information at 6.0...
Adesh Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes523; 38(1989)DLT331
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of detention passed on June 27, 1988 by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, against Adesh Aggarwal, the detenu on whose behalf the petition has been filed. The order was made by the specially empowered officer under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Cofeposa Act') with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. (2) The grounds of detention also date the June 27, 1988 reveal that on information received by the Enforcement Directorate, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance to the effect that Adesh Aggarwal was making payments in large scale in India on instruction from persons residing in Singapore, searches were conducted on May 12, 1988 at the residential as well as business premises of the detenu. In paragraph 2 of the grounds of detentio...
Parammal Abdul Rahiman @ Abdu Rahiman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: 1989(23)LC321(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. It is indeed unfortunate that even nearly one decade after the promulgation of such laws providing for preventive detention the detaining authorities, perhaps unwittingly, commit such procedural mistakes which leave the Court with no option but to release the detenu. This Court has had occasion to comment on this, time and again, but to no effect.2. The petitioner is seeking to challenge the order of detention dated 2nd August, 1988 which was passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act), as well as the declaration which was issued under Section 9(1) by the Central Government on 17th October, 1988.3. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 17th February, 1988 the Superintendent, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Trivandrum along with members of his party intercepted one K.P. Basheer of Calicut and one K.P. Asarullah Rakha Khan also of Calicut, who ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »