Delhi Court August 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.
Surjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT387
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) One of the challenges, to the detention order passed in respect to the petitioner on 13th October, 1988 invoking the provisions of section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Cofeposa Act), damped on him with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, is that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind and was unwarranted for the reason that the passport of the petitioner had been seized on the date of incident itself, namely, on 25th June, 1988 and continued to be in the custody of authorities, and as such he was effectively prevented from indulging in smuggling and .further that the trial court while ordering release of the petitioner on bail by order dated 11th July, 1988 had imposed condition to the effect that the petitioner shall not leave the country without permission of the Court. The contention has been elaborately set out in ground 'H' of the w...
Perfect Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC332Tri(Delhi)
1. When the case was called on for hearing on 21-11-1988 Shri L.C.Chakraborty, learned JDR submitted that he is feeling handicapped in replying to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants since the record is not available with the department.Elaborating on his submissions he submitted that the relevant file of the case was sent by post parcel No. 819 dated 6-7-1987 to the Senior Departmental Representative, CEGAT and this parcel alongwith seven other parcels were delivered and received by the clerk of the office of the Sr. D.R., CEGAT, but incidentally the case file of the instant appeal is not traceable and there is also no likelihood of its being found in the near future. Under these circumstances he submitted that the statements of various persons recorded during the enquiry and relied upon in the show cause notice as detailed out in Annexure 'B' to the show cause notice be summoned from the appellants as the copies of all these statements were supplied to t...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. R.S. Metals and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC443Tri(Delhi)
1. At the outset of the hearing the learned advocates for the respondents had raised a preliminary objection that the authorisation by the Collector in terms of provisions of Section 35B(2) is not proper. In support of their arguments the learned advocates cited a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Asiatic Oxygen (sic).2. Shri K. D. Tayal, the learned S.D.R. who had appeared on behalf of the appellant produced the original file where the Collector had passed the order for filing of the appeal, and the file was shown to the advocates. Shri Tayal stated that the authorisation is proper and pleads that the objection raised by the respondents may be overruled.3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The authorisation in both the appeals is similar. The authorisation in the case of M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. is reproduced below:Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur...Appellantv.I, Van Lalvela Collector, Central Ex...
Sagar Kumar Sehgal Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC450Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant has filed an application for grant of Gold Dealers' licence to carry on gold business in the individual capacity. This was rejected by the Deputy Collector (Gold), New Delhi vide Order No. 2/87 dated 11-2-1987 on the ground that the appellant has filed incorrect declaration to the effect that although he was a partner in M/s.Anarkali Jewellers and that the firm was convicted of an offence under Gold (Control) Act in a case of seizure involving 225-500 grams of primary gold and that a penalty of Rs. 2,000/ - was imposed, which was not disclosed by the appellant at the time of filing an application for licence. The appellant's stand before the authority was that there was no necessity for him to stale involvement of the firm relating to offence and penalty as no penally was imposed on any partner and particularly on him as firm itself was a separate legal entity on its own from partners and he was not subjected to any penalty and he was not required to make any such inf...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. (No ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR143(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 256(2) for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that an expenditure of Rs. 4,38,329 on setting up a project in Indonesia was not of capital nature by following their earlier order which has not been accepted by the Department 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the donation of Rs. 1,22,237 being donation to Bharat Commerce Vidyalaya was an allowable deduction 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 6,20,213 on the machinery which could not be expected was not of capital nature 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of...
Blue Star Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC537Tri(Delhi)
1. In this stay application, the applicants have sought for stay of imposition of duty amount of Rs. 1,11,081.22 P. passed by the respondent Collector in order dated 22-9-1988 by classifying the goods stove burner parts manufactured by the applicants under the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item 26A(3)(ii) from 1-8-1984.2. The applicants contention is that the stove burner parts manufactured by them are to be classified under Tariff Item 68. They have further contended that many manufacturers of identical stove burner parts are being classified under Item 68. They have further contended that the respondent Collector has confirmed the demand retrospectively under Section 11A of the Act and the said confirmation of the demand is time-barred.3. Shri B.B. Gujral, Advocate appearing for the applicants, strongly contended that the applicants have a storage prima-facie case in as much as that the goods manufactured by them, have all along been classified under Item 68. The applicants are a ...
Essco Sanitations Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT752TriDel
1. E/Misc/387/86-A - The Misc. application is seeking permission to take up additional ground in the appeal relating to limitation. Shri A.N. Sharma, the learned consultant appearing for the applicants submits that this is a point of law that the demand for duty issued beyond six months is hit by limitation under Rule 173-J read with Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri S. Krishnamurthy, the learned Senior Departmental Representative opposes the petition. On a consideration of the submissions made, we find that the petition seeks to add ground to the appeal on limitation which, being a question of law, is allowed.Appeal No, E/874/81-A - The appeal is directed against the order dated 28-2-1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs which had upheld the order dated 10-7-1980 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi upholding the demand for duty of Rs. 1,28,824.23 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The Board, however, set aside the penalty on...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. (No ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR90(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. By this petition under section 256(2), the Commissioner of Income-tax wants the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct both on facts and law in holding that sum of Rs. 32,032 which was part of Rs. 5,95,923 treated by the Income-tax officer as capital expenditure was actually of revenue nature and was allowable as expenditure following their decision for the assessment year 1973-74 which has not been accepted by the Department 2, whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the entire expenditure of Rs. 5,95,923 was expenditure of revenue nature following accepted by the Department 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the contingent liability of Rs. 2...
Bharat Overseas Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. University Teachers Co-opera ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi20; 1991(1)ARBLR234(Delhi); 39(1989)DLT446
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This application under Order 12, Rule 6 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 41 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (for short 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioner. Petitioner wants that judgment be pronounced against the respondent in respect of that portion of the award for payment of certain money to the petitioner which is not under challenge and is admitted by the respondent as well. (2) Certain disputes between the parties were referred to the sole arbitration of Justice D.R. Khanna on a petition filed under Section 20 of the Act by the petitioner. It appears there was a contract between the parties for construction of various flats of the respondent by the petitioner-contractor. This contract contained a clause constituting the arbitration agreement between the parties. The arbitrator gave his award on 25th September, 1987 and on the same day filed it in this court. At this stage it is not necessary to refer to the award in detail,...
Chhota Lal Yadav Vs. Sardar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: 1990(18)DRJ232
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of ihe contract on the basis on the agreement to sell dated 28-1-1987 entered into between the parties for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000. The plaintiff has prayed in this application that injunction should be granted against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and also from alienating and charging the premises bearing No. A-53, Ami-it Puri (Ghari) near East of Kailash, N. Delhi during the pendency of ihe suit. The suit hai been brought on the allegation that there was an agreement to sell between the plaintiff and the defendant entered on 28-1-1987 in which defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff house No. A-53, Amrit Puri (Ghari) Near East of Kailash, N. Delhi measuring 200 sq. yds. consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, bath room/latrine, toilet etc. and open land as referred to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »