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.
Jg. Glass Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC185Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order-in-appeal No. 33-34/CE/MRT/89, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi disposed of two appeals filed before him. The appellants challenged the order of the Collector (Appeals) in Appeal No. E/2165/89-A which was received in this Tribunal within the statutory time-limit of three months on 16-6-1989. According to the prevailing practice in this Tribunal, the appellants filed a supplementary appeal which has been assigned Appeal No. E/2547/89-A. As this supplementary appeal was not filed within the statutory time-limit of three months, they have filed a COD application as indicated above.After hearing both the parties before us, we have condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeal and have allowed the COD application.2. Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,92,366.59 was demanded from the appellants. This demand related to the Central Excise duty on the value of packing materials supplied by the appellants' customers free of cost. In the st...
Baby Rashmi Mehra and Another Vs. Sunil Mehra and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi44; I(1990)DMC94
1. Plaintiff 2 Ms. Seema Mehra and defendant 1 Mr. Sunil Mehra are wife and husband. They were married on 22nd February 1985. Plaintiff 1, Baby Rashmi, born on 21st December 1985 is their daughter. According to plaint defendant 2 Moti Lal Mehra is the father of Sunil. There is some dispute on this aspect which ,however, is not relevant for deciding the present controversy. Defendant 3 is the mother; defendants 4 to 6 the brothers and defendant 7 is the grand mother of Sunil, defendant 1.2. The wife and husband last resided together at premises No. C-207, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. It appears that since about September 1988 Seema and Rashmi are living at the residence of Seema's father.3. The suit has been filed under the provisions of Ss. 18 and 20. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, No. 78 of 1956 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The daughter and mother have, inter alia, claimed that (a) a decree for maintenance for a sum of Rs. 6500 / - per month against the defendants; ...
Union of India Vs. M/S. Swadeshi Karyalaya and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi53
ORDER1. On filing of the award, which had earlier been remitted under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, objections have been filed by the Union of India stating that the claim of the respondent-contractor was barred by limitation.2. On pleas of the parties following issues, as usual, were framed:--1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections of petitioner-UOI?2. Relief.Parties were allowed to lead evidence by means of affidavits.3. The disputes pertain to the year 1963. Between 14th January 1963 to 4th October, 1963, the Union of India (UOI) placed orders with the respondent-contractor for supply of hosiery goods. Respondent is in fact a manufacturer. The basic material used for manufacture of hosiery is worsted yarn. At the relevant time it was a contract item. the price of the yarn was increased by the Textile Commissioner on 25th October, 1963 and the 20th November 1963. Supplies could also not be effected within time as there was delay in supply of worste...
NavIn Kumar Kapoor Vs. the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: 1990LC281(Delhi); ILR1989Delhi225; 1989RLR421
Leila Seth, J.(1) (ORAL) (Rule D.B.). The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 21st April 1989 passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(7) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.(2) The main ground of challenge to the sail order is that the replies dated 27th March, 1989 and 3rd April, 1989 to the show cause notice were not placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority and consequently could not be. considered by the detaining authority before arriving at its subjective satisfaction and passing the detention order.(3) An affidavit in reply to the petition has been filed by Mr. A. S. Dagar, Deputy Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration, affirmed on 3rd July, 1989. In the said affidavit, the respondent has stated that the petitioner's replies dated 7th February, 1989, 1st March, 1989, 10th March, 1989 and 13th March, 1989 were duly considered by the Ad...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bhupindra Steel (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC359Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Misc. application, the Revenue has sought leave of this Tribunal to produce a number of documents as additional evidence. The same is vehemently opposed by the respondent assessee.2. The case of the appellant Revenue is that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots falling under sub-item 6(ii) of the then Tariff Item 25 of the Central Excise Tariff out of the iron scrap. They were also manufacturing steel ingots alleged to have been manufactured out of inputs i.e. steel ingots falling under sub-item 6(ii); Runners and Risers of sub-item 6(iii) and Blooms, billets, slabs and sheet bars of sub-item 7(ii), pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron and steel of sub-item 8, bar and rods, (excluding flats) of sub-item 9(ii) and angles, shapes and sections falling under sub-item 11 of T.1.25. On the steel ingots manufactured out of iron scrap the party was paying duty @ Rs. 200/- per M.T. as per classification list w.e.f. 10-7-1984 and @ Rs. 315/- p...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Balaji Vegetable Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC388Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. 479-CE/KNP/85, dated 30-8-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi arising out of Order-in-Original No. 12/STP/84, dated 22-8-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division, Sitapur.2. Brief facts of case, as stated in the appeal memo, may be summarised as under: The respondents are the manufacturers of vegetable product falling under Tariff Item 13. The respondents availed of credit benefits in terms of Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 as amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982 in respect of Vitamins A & D falling under Tariff Item 68, which, according to the Revenue, was not admissible to them after issuance of amending Notification No. 105/82 as Vitamins A & D were not raw materials/component parts in terms of notification. The total credit so availed of by the respondents during the period 1-3-1982 to 28-6-1984 amounted to Rs. 22,694.85 P. So, a show cause...
Smt. Nani Rai Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD229(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (A), the question was whether the penalty Under Section 271(i)(a) was rightly, properly and legally imposed.2. We have heard at great length the arguments addressed to us by the assessee's representative Shri R. Ganeshan and by the learned Departmental Representative Shri Subhash Kumar and we are of the opinion that the levy of penalty was not proper and justified in law.3. The relevant facts are: The assessee was required for the year under appeal, namely, 1975-76, to file the return of income by 30-6-1975. As no return was filed, a notice Under Section 148 was issued on 2-3-1979, which was served on the assessee on 3-3-1979. The assessee, however, in the meantime submitted a return on 20-2-1979 i.e. before the issue of the notice Under Section 148, marking the return as 'duplicate'. The Income-tax Officer naturally required the assessee to prove how, when and where the original return was filed. In respons...
M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Bimla Ahuja and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC229; AIR1990Delhi68; [1990]68CompCas502(Delhi)
1. While arguing this appeal Mr. Jain appearing for the appellant has made a very limited grievance. He is not aggrieved of the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle nor is he aggrieved of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. Mr. Jain urges that in this case the liability of the insurance company appellant is limited to Rs. 50,000/- only and that it could only be made liable to that extent and not beyond that.2. Now adverting to the facts, it may, be stated that on 12th of Dec. 1973 at about 11.45 a.m. one Om Prakash Ahuja who was traveling on a motor cycle was crushed to death by the offending vehicle bus No. DLP-5096. Consequently, a petition under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dated 16th of July 1980 made an award for a sum of Rs. 1,04,940/- in favor of the petitioners in the claim petition and furt...
Karat Krishana Das Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: ILR1989Delhi312
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks issuance of writ of Habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for the immediate release of the petitioner and quashing the order of detention dated 7th December, 1987 passed by Sh. M. Mohan Kumar, Secretary to Govt. (Home) State of Kerala, Trivandrum. (2) The brief facts relevant for the decision of this writ petition are that on 1-4-1987 the petitioner holder of Indian Passport No. M5510190 landed at Trivandrum Airport from Jeddah via Bombay by Air India flight No. AI-965. He gave a declaration of having brought with him dutiable articles worth Rs. 11,850 and after having paid Rs. 13,000 as duty when he was about to leave the baggage Hall, he was intercepted because his movements were found to be suspicious. It was then found that he had two excess baggage tickets. On examining them 8 gold biscuits were found from each of t...
Goswami Wadhwa Commission of Inquiry Vs. Central Bureau of Investigati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(17)DRJ170
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this order I propose to dispose of an application (MA No. 21/89) filed by the Delhi Bar Association (DBA) for summoning the record of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') investigating into two incidents of 21-1-1988 and 17-2-1988. It was admitted at the Bar that the application though made by the Dba is also by the Advocates to whom notices under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 (for short 'the Act') had been issued. The purpose for which the record was desired to be summoned was to cross-examine Mr. Jinder Singb, S.I., who was in-charge of Police Post Tis Hazari during the relevant period and also Mr. Rajesh Yadav who admittedly led the mob to Tis Hazari Court on 17-2-1988,(2) On notice being issued, the Cbi has opposed the application.(3) Arguments have been addressed by Bawa Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the Dba and for advocates falling under Section 8B of the Act, Mr. K.T.S. Tuisi, Senior Advocate, for pol...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »