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.
Chatterjee Energy Systems (P) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT88aTriDel
1. Impugned order dated 27-5-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), and as contended in this application, was received by the appellant on 8-6-1988 and that at that time Mrs. Shanta I. Chatterji, who is one of the Directors of the appellant company and actively looking after the affairs of the company was not attending to the affairs of the company due to serious illness of her father and mother.It is, further, contended that in August, 1988, papers for preferring appeal before this Tribunal were handed over to a lawyer, one Mr. R.G.Sonawale, but the papers were misplaced in his office and that same could be traced on 19-6-1989 and were returned to the appellant company and that thereafter the appeal was prepared and filed in the Registry on 12-7-1989. A letter addressed by the said Advocate, Mr. Sonawale, to the appellant company, which is dated 19-6-1989, is produced alongwith an affidavit sworn by the said Advocate stating the above facts. So, it is prayed in this appli...
Collector of Customs Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC142
1. Collector of Customs, Delhi has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order No. 1375 to 1377/DLH/83, dated 26-7-1983. Since the common issue is involved, the same are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Commission had imported repair kit and packing set for plunger in FMC pump. The appellants had filed refund claims, and had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 197/76-Cus., dated 2nd August, 1976. The learned Assistant Collector had observed that the goods under import i.e. repair kit and packing set required for FMC pump which itself was a component of blow out preventer, and had held that the benefit of exemption notification could not be extended to a component of a component, and had rejected the refund claims. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Collector, the respondents has filed appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Before the Collector (Appeals) it was c...
income-tax Officer Vs. Ramji Lal Gansham Das
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD127(Delhi)
1. The revenue has preferred these appeals for the four assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77. The CIT (A) had disposed of these four appeals by his common order dated 14th April, 1986. The objection of the revenue is on the cancellation of the penalties levied on the assessee for the concealment of incomes under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The quantum of penalties levied were Rs. 44,862, Rs. 30,395, Rs. 33,197 & Rs. 40,072 for the assessment years from 1973-74 to 1976-77 2. The brief facts of the case are brought out below. The business premises of the assessee firm and the residential premises of the partners were searched on 29th Dec. 1981. The seized documents included duplicate set of cash book and ledger which were marked for identification as Nos. 57 & 58, 59, 55 & 56, and 50 relating to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 respectively.The ITO co-relating the items appearing in the seized books and the regular books of accounts was able t...
Union of India Vs. O.P. Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR121]; (1991)ILLJ530Del
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Union of India is directed against the order dated 11th June, 1984, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi, whereby the Labour Court allowed the application of the respondents under Section 33C(2) and awarded particular amounts to the alleged workmen. 2. The respondents are employees of the Union of India and are working with the Garrison Engineer North, Air Force, Palam, Delhi, under the Ministry of defense. The said Department owns a number of buildings for providing residential accommodation to the defense personnel. Some of the buildings are owned by the Government while the others are taken on lease by the Government. Whenever some of these building fall vacant on transfer or retirement of the officers, an employee is posted in that building. The respondents are in that category and have been posted in building to take care. They field a claim with the Labour Court that they...
Sucha Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)Crimes222; 39(1989)DLT249
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) (RULE D.B.) Sucha Singh s/o Sh. Ran Singh was tried for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 308 Indian Penal Code with the allegations that on 23rd June. 1984 at about 11.00 A.M. in front of House No. 3A/78-B, Vishnu Garden Extn., Delhi he intentionally or knowingly caused the death of Kulvinder Singli and caused injuries to Waryam Singh with such intention or knowledge that if Waryam Singh had died he would have bean guilty of culpable homicide net amounting to murder.(2) He was found guilty for the offences punishable under , 302 and 303 Indian Penal Code by Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 31-12-1985. Sucha Singh has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under S. 302 Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for three months with a fine of Rs. 100 for the offence under Sec. 323 Indian Penal Code . It has further been ordered that in case of default of payment of fine he would suffer further R.I. for one month and that ...
Madbu Bala Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ790; 1989(17)DRJ178
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The dying declarations made by Vinod Bala are the basis of conviction of her sister-in-law Madhu Bala, the appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) By this appeal, the appellant is challenging her conviction for the offence of murder and also the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on her. The prosecution case was that on 26th April, 1983 at about 3.45 P.M., Vinod Bala was burnt by her sister-in-law Madhu Bala in their house No. C-813, Mangol Puri, Delhi. According to the prosecution, the appellant had poured kerosene oil on Vinod Bala and thereafter set her on fire. The incident happened in a corner of one of the rooms of the house, which corner was being used as a kitchen by the deceased and her husband. Subhash.(3) It is the admitted case of the prosecution that Subhash, i.e., the husband of the deceased has four sisters. The appellant Madhu Bala is one of them. The First Information Report about the incident ...
Union of India Vs. O.P. Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT538
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Union of India is directed against the order dated June Ii, 1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi whereby the Labour Court allowed the application of the respondents under section 33C(2) and awarded particular amount to the alleged workmen. (2) The respondents are employees of the Union of India and are working with the Garrison Engineer Nurth, Air Force, Palam, Delhi under the Ministry of defense. The said Department owns number of buildings for providing residential accommodation to the defense personnel Some of the buildings arc owned by the Government while the others are taken on lease by the Government, Whenever some of these buildings fall vacant on transfer or retirement of the officers an employee is posted in that building as Chowkidar to take care of the vacant building. The respondents are in that category and have been posted in buildings to r...
Abbosalah Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)Crimes277; 39(1989)DLT304
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This criminal petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks the quashing of an order of detention No. 16097lSS-A[88. Home dated 28th March, 1988, passed by the Secretary to Government of Kerala, Home (SS-A) Department, Trivandrum. (2) The detention order was actually served on the petitioner on 7th September, 1988. He was allegedly found in possession of 193 gold coins and 150 Metres of textiles at Quality while traveling from Bombay to his native place Malapparilm in Kerala. He landed at Bombay Airport from Jeddah on the night of 25-S-87 after his Hai in Saudi Arabia, (3) In this case the Union of India is imp leaded as respondent No. I and State of Kerala as respondent No. 2. Service on the Union of India in this case was affected on 10-1-89 for 30-1-89. However, none put in appearance on behalf of the Union. of India in this case till today. Counter affidavit has been filed Oil behalf of respon...
Rajindernath Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT238
Leila Seth, J.(1) By this writ petition the pethioner is praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as a Brigadier with original seniority and permit him to continue to serve his tenure till the age of 54 years.(2) The relevant facts are not in dispute and are in a narrow compass.The petitioner has been in the employment of the Government of India,defense Services since 3/06/1956. He was promoted to the rank of Acting Colonel on 15th July, 1981 and got the substantive rank of Colonel with effect fom 1/07/1982. However, he was not placed in the select list for promotion to the rank of Brigadier despite the fact that his case was considered as a fresh case in the year 1982, a first review in 1983 and a second review in 1984. The reason apparently was because of certain entries in his annual confidential reports.(3) It is the admitted position that a Colonel in the Indian army retires at 52 years of age and a Brigadier at 54 years. The petitioner wa...
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT134TriDel
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. GSM-469/89 BD dated 28-2-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2.1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gujarat Refinery (the appellants herein - 'I.O.C, for short), supply Kerosene to M/s Indian Petrochemicals Ltd. ('I.P.C.L.', for short) for manufacture of Linear Alkyl Benzene or Heavy alkylate ('LAB', for short). Such kerosene is duty-paid and is sup plied in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 21/82 dated 27-2-1982. The notification exempts kerosene falling under Item No. 7 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Schedule is hereinafter referred to as the 'CET', for short), intended for use in the manufacture of L.A.B. in any premises declared under Rule 140(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the 'Rules', for short) to be a refinery ('declared refinery', for short) from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is equi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »