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.
Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT510; 1989RLR529
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) ADMITTED. Since the appeal involves a short question, we propose to dispose of the appeal immediately.(2) This is an appeal against an order of the learned single Judge of this Court, who bad directed the proposed sale consideration be deposited in Court before any further orders are passed in the suit.(3) The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 11th January, 1988. It was averred that the defendants along with one Laxmi Narain had agreed to sell some land in Village Biswan. New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 3,25,000 per acre. It is further alleged that prior to the execution of the agreement to sell, Laxmi Narain had in fact died on 18th July, 1969, and this fact was not known to the plaintiff/ appellant. In view of this, the prayer in the suit was for the relief of grant of a decree for specific performance in respect of the 2/3 share of the two defendants in the land in question.(4) When the suit came up for hearing on the f...
Shaukat Ali Vs. Indian Airlines
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi63a; 39(1989)DLT227
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The only question in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the change of date of birth on the basis of school leaving certificate. The petitioner was recruited as a Peon with the respondent son 7.7.1953 and his age was recorded as thirty years. In 1964 the respondents issued a general circular calling upon those employees who alleged that their date of birth was wrongly .recorded to appear for the medical examination. The petitioner states that he did not get a copy of the circular but lateron pursuant to a subsequent letter he was examined medically. The Medical Board opined that his date of birth was 24.5.1924. In the subsequent seniority list the date of birth of 1924 was shown. Actually there isamistake. Instead of 24.5.1924 the date of birth recorded in the seniority list was 24.11.1924. The counsel for the respondents stales that although the petitioner had the knowledge of the alleged incorrect recording of the date of birth, be did not take...
Kanhiya Lal Vs. State of Haryana Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi320; 1989RLR420
Malik, J.(1) The appellants filed this appeal making a grievance against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tri- bunal dated 18th of July 1988 by which the appellants were allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,0001- for the death of their son aged about 18 years who died in a motor accident on 7th of May, 1983. The court on 20th of April 1989 directed a notice to be sent to the other party to show cause why the appeal shall not be admitted limited to the, question of interest. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties today as the appeal was admitted restricted to the question of interest on 10th of August 1989.(2) The counsel for the respondents has urged that the delay was caused due to the laches on the part of the appellants and that a specific mention of this fact ha, been made by the Tribunal in para 28 of its order. Indeed; the Tribunal has made an observation that since the delay was caused due to the laches on the part of the appellants t1iey could not be allow...
Food Specialities Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC237
ORDERGovernment of India have considered the points raised by the petitioner in their revision application and at the time of hearing. They observe that the petitioner has urged that BRU is mixture of coffee and chicory; it is not known as instant coffee in the trade; certain affidavits from persons said to be in the trade were filed in support. Evidence was also led in to show that coffee-chicory mixture was initially developed in France during a siege in the Napoleonic days; and it is normally known as 'French Coffee'. It is seen from the label of the produce that it is marked 'instant'. It is prepared by adding a spoonful of the produce to a cup of hot water resulting in the production of the beverage to which is added milk and sugar as taste dictates.Item 2 of the Central Excise Tariff reads; 'Coffee commercially known as 'instant coffee'.' The point for determination, thereforee, is whether BRU is coffee commercially known as 'instant coffee'. From evidence led in by the petitione...
Rajesh Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)(27)LC261Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Rajesh Paper Mills Limited has filed an appeal being aggrieved form in the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise. Kanpur.Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s Rajesh Paper Mills Ltd., Shikohabad, Uttar Pradesh are manufacturers of Kraft Paper falling under Sub-item (2) of Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. At the material time, the appellants have filed a classification list No. 5/81 on 1st April, 1981 in respect of the said goods and the appellants had declared that their installed capacity of the plant was 1920 MT per year based on 330 working days and claimed exemption from Central Excise duty to the extent of 75% of the duty leviable thereon under Notification No. 128/77-CE dated 18th June, 1977 as amended. The said classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Agra on 21st May, 1981. In terms of Notification No. 128/77-CE dated 18th June, 1977 Government of India had exempted paper other than paper board with certain cond...
Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1989
Reported in: (1992)(42)LC392Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd., has filed an application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 i.e. the order of the Tribunal vide Order No. 594/87-B1 dated 21st May, 1987. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on merits. On the date of the hearing the appellants did not appear and therefore the appeal was disposed of by an ex pane order. By the present Misc. Application for restoration of appeal the applicant seeks the recalling of the Tribunal's earlier order No. 594/87-B1 dated 21st May, 1987 in the alternative for the rectification of mistakes. Shri S.K. Bagaria, the learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the applicant has reiterated the contentions made in the Misc. Application in support of his argument. For the recalling of the order he has cited 3 judgments.Income-Tax Officer, "F" Ward, District IV(2), v. Murlidhar Sarda reported in 99 ITR 485, where the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had held that the Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction anc...
B.J. Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT474TriDel
1. Shri B.J. Singh has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported one Mercedes Benz 240 D 1984 Model Car 2398 cc vide Bill of Entry No. 820/320 dated 20th March, 1987. The same was assessed vide No. HC 973 on 3rd April, 1987.The appellant had declared the assessable value in the Bill of Entry under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 at Rs. 1,33,522/-. The appellant had placed manufacturers Invoice No. 01/607586 dated 6th December, 1983 from M/s. Dailmer-Benz AG, West Germany and the appellant had computed the assessable value on the basis of the manufacturer's Invoice and in the manufacturer's invoice there was a diplomatic discount of 10%. The learned Assistant Collector did not allow the 10% diplomatic allowance but had allowed ad hoc depreciation at Rs. 5,000/- on account of damages. In addition to the depreciation @ 38% as per calculation sheet attached ...
Damehra Steels and Forging (P) Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1989
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT116TriDel
1. We have heard both sides on this condonation application. Delay in filing the appeal was due to the fact that the appellant has filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta against the impugned order. The Hon'ble High Court rejected the petition, but, however, directed to allow the condonation of delay on filing the condonation application. In view of the sufficient cause, delay was condoned and accordingly, this appeal was taken up for hearing on merits.2. On facts originally the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, vide his order No. 860(V)-178/86-A/S49(V)-8/86A, dated 9-1-1987, has determined the value at Rs. 4,64,747.44 against Rs. 3,32,207.44 = DM 61940.00 C.I.F. as declared by the appellants in the Bill of Entry for their second hand Bar Peelar/Calow DMR 2 for 25-80 (centreless bar turning machine) for M.V. Bengal Progress Rot No. 295/86, Line No. 44 and the order to be loaded for Rs. 1,32,540/-. In view of this (sic) arrived at the value for loading on the basis of ...
M/S. Anant Raj Agencies Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi70; 41(1990)DLT597; 1990(19)DRJ57
ORDER1. The plaintiff M / s. Anant Raj Agencies has filed this suit under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act with a request, that defendant No. 2 arbitrator should be directed to file award in court and on such filing this award be made a rule of court and decree be drawn accordingly. On service of notice the arbitrator filed his award dated 30th Sept., 1985 notice of filing of the award was accepted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on 21st Nov., 1985 but no objections were filed by the plaintiff. Notice of filing of the award was served upon defendant No. I Delhi Development Authority on 3rd Dec., 1985 and it filed objections (I.A. No. 173 of 1986) against the award under Ss. 30 and 33, of the Arbitration Act on 2nd Jan., 1986. The objections were opposed on behalf of the plaintiff. The following issues were framed vide orders dated 29th Sept., 1986:1. Whether the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings?2. Whether there was any error apparent on the face of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.L. Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC283(Delhi); [1990]182ITR361(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. This order will dispose of a petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act wherein it is prayed that the Tribunal should state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court : ' (1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the material facts pointed out by the assessed in his miscellaneous application were not considered by the Tribunal, especially when all the facts pointed out by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in para 5 of their order were before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and have been considered by them in their order dated June 27, 1985 (2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that there is a mistake in the Tribunal's order dated June 27, 1985, when there is no such mistake apparent from the record and all the facts mentioned by the Tribunal were considered by them in passing their order dated June 27, 1985 (3) Whether the Income-tax Appell...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »