Delhi Court July 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.
Malwa Motor Body Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC281Tri(Delhi)
1. S/Shri P.N. Kaul and K.A. Sindhi, the r learned advocate and learned consultant respectively for the appellants herein urged that the issue involved herein is regarding dutiability of bodies built upon motor vehicle of chassis by small-scale manufacturer commonly known as body builders. They further urged that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Darshan Singh Pavitar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and Others [1988 (34) E.L.T. 631 (P & H)]. They pointed out that it has been categorically held in that case that the bodies built by the body builders on motor vehicle chassis are covered under Tariff Heading 87.07 and not under 87.02 or 87.04 as was the contention of the department before the said High Court. Accordingly, the benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 is applicable to them since their turnover is within the exemption limit. They, therefore, urged that their appeals should be allowed in view of the jud...
Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC341Tri(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals emanate from a common order and were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts necessary for deciding these appeals are that M/s.Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mills') manufactured and cleared cotton fabrics falling under T.1.19-1(2) as it existed at the relevant time. A "Memorandum" was issued to them by the Assistant Collector on 24-6-1977, stating that the mills did not discharge their duty liability on the cotton fabrics produced by them between the period 16-3-1977 to 30-5-1977 and alleging that they were chargeable to differential duty leviable with reference to that part of value which represented duty on yarn paid by a composite mill in accordance with Rule 96(W) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The reasons for the demand were given as follows :- 'In terms of Finance Act, 1976 the tariff structure in respect of cotton fabrics falling under Item No. 19-1(2) was changed from spe...
Expo Machinery Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD41(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's appeal against the order dated 27-1-1989 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VII, New Delhi in respect of the assessee's assessment for assessment year 1984-85, whereby he has set aside the assessment insofar as it related to deduction under Section 80HHC and directing the IAC(A) to restrict the said deduction within the limits prescribed by Section 80AB.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.3. The assessee derives income, inter alia, from export of goods. The IAC(A) determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 16,62,404, out of which he allowed deduction for depreciation at Rs. 1,58,104 and deduction for entertainment expenditure under Section 37(2A) at Rs. 5,828. The net total income as determined by the assessing officer, thus, comes to Rs. 14,98,472 out of which he allowed deduction under Section 80HHC at Rs. 1,73,386.4. The Commissioner ...
P.D. Gupta Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR216]; 1989RLR337
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) The challenge in this petition is to the order dt. 24-9-76 of dismissal from service as a result of departmental enquiry in terms of Reg. 43(l)(e) of the Regulations as .also appellate order dt.28.4.77, whereby petitioner was informed that his appeal has been considered by the Committee of the Central Board and has been dismissed. (2) The brief facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner was employed in the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi as Assistant Treasurer. At the relevant time he was in charge of 'Note Examination' Section D. The following irregularities were noticed: (1) certification of defective/mutilated notes as 'entire' by the petitioner, though they were not entire and thereforee, passable by him; (2) returning of defective/mutilated notes taken out from the tender of the Syndicate Bank to the representative of the said Bank without ensuring that they were branded with 'mutilated payment refused' stamp; (3) acceptance of mutilated/defective...
Parmod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT45
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) (RULE D.B.) The appellant, Parmod Kumar aged about 20 years, has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed rape on Public Witness 8, Rashmi, a girl of about 8 years. For this offence he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 which on realisation is to be paid to the prosecutrix. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo R.I. for six months. Further, he has been convicted for an offence of house trespass under Section 451 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months. (2) The father of the prosecutrix at the relevant time was a Head Constable in the Delhi Police. He had been allotted a quarter in New Police Lines, Delhi. The father of the appellant who was also employed in the Delhi Police, was residing in another quarter in those very police lines. The offence was committed at the house of the proscentrix's father. (3) The learned trial court has accepted...
Rafiq Ahmad Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2328
1. The petitioner herein was detained on 1st October, 1988, pursuant to the order of detention passed on 29th September, 1988 by the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi, in exercise of the powers under S. 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act) on the view that his detention was necessary to prevent smuggling of goods, namely, gold into India. 2. The detention order was passed as a sequel to recovery of gold weighing 520.800 gms. valued at Rs. 1,66,320/- from the petitioner on his arrival from Bombay as domestic passenger by Air India flight No. 316 Delhi-Bombay-Dubai-Bombay-Delhi on 12th April, 1988. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under S. 108 of the Customs At, 1962 wherein he allegedly admitted recovery and gave further details. He was placed under arrest but subsequently released on bail by order passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 22...
Joti Prasad Bala Prasad Vs. A.C.T. Developers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas601(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the company judge who, while issuing some directions, dismissed the petition for winding up which had been filed by the appellant/petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that by a letter dated june 16, 1982, the respondent-company placed an order on the appellant for the supply of various quantities of red polished stones of different sizes. A sum of Rs.36,000 was paid as advance by the respondent to the appellant. The case of the appellant is that between August 12, 1982, and November 21, 1982, it sent various consignments of the aforesaid material to the respondent. Delivery of these consignments was taken and the value of the goods which were supplied came to Rs.2,14,091.20. After adjusting the advance of Rs.36,000, a sum of Rs.1,78,091.20 became due and payable. According to the appellant, the respondent is also liable to pay a further sum of Rs.14,986.40 by way of sales tax. 3. A statutory notice of demand was iss...
Susheel Saran and anr. Vs. Director of Advertising and Visual Publicit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: 1989(17)DRJ295
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The plaintiffs Susheel Saran and M/s. Cine Publicity Cell filed the present suit in this court on 14-8-1978 for the recovery of Rs. 17,90,731.28 p.(2) As is apparent from I.A. No. 2076 of 1979, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint was deficiently stamped. In this application I.A. No. 2076 of 1979, a prayer was made that for the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint by adding a prayer that he be permitted to sue as an indigent person By an order dated 23-8-1979, the application for amendment was allowed subject to just exceptions. The suit, thereforee, became a petition under Order 33 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 10-9-1979 notices were issued to the Collector and the Government Pleader. Thereafter an-enquiry was held to find out whether the plaintiff is an indigent person. The Indigent Petition was numbered as I P.A. No. 13 of 1979.(3) In conn...
Santosh Kumari and ors. Vs. Mohammad Arshad Khan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi81
Malik, J.(1) The appellants have impugned the award of 10th of August 1977 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 17,500 to the appellants. The appellants' grievance is that the learned Tribunal has fallen into an error in calculating the amount and on a proper assessment of the facts and circumstances the amount ought to have been to the tune of Rs. 43,260. (2) Before I advert to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to record certain facts. The deceased is one Mr. S.K. Sharma son of Shri Ratti Ram who was involved in an accident on 16th of September 1969 at about 2 p.m. at Jamuna bridge. The offending bus No. Dlp 3709 was being driven by respondent No. 2 who at the relevant time was the driver of the bus. Respondent No. I the owner of the bus and respondent No. 3 the insurance company have also been made parties. The cause of accident was rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. (3) The respondents have not mad...
M. Jaya Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi77
M.K.Chawla, J. (1) The petitioner Jayakumar Moorthy 18 seeking the setting aside of the detention order passed on 28th of December, 1987 by the Government of Kerala u/s. 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), for short, the Cofeposa Act. The order was made against the petitioner with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of gold, engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. (2) Along with the impugned order, the ground of detention also dated 28th December, 1987 were served on the detenu while he was in judicial custody. On 3rd February, 1988, declaration u/s. 9(1) of the Cofeposa Act (as amended), was issued by Shri B. V. Kumar, Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The Cofeposa Advisory Board in its report opined that there was suf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›