Delhi Court September 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.
Thamki Vanilal Jagjivan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi395
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) By virtue of this petition brought under Article 226' of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashment of deletion order dated October 13, 1988, made under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, Act, 1974 (for short Cofeposa Act') by Shri K. L.Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, with aview, to Preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. (2) The facts, inbrief, are that on June 21,1988, the petitioner, who is an Indian citizen having Indian passport, arrived at Igi Airport from Dubai and on being apprehended, he was found to be in possession of contraband gold in the shape of buckles affixed on the children garments which had been electroplated with white metal.There were 381 pieces of such buckles which collectively weighed 2275 gms of gold of the value of Rs. 7,28,000. The petitioner could not produce any ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khem Chand Raj Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR28(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. In this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner seeks reference of the following two questions of law to this court: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 60,980, Rs. 11,640, Rs. 75,472, Rs. 81,074 and Rs. 1,02,596 for assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, respectively, specially in view of the finding of the Tribunal in para 12 of its order dated June 24, 1981, that the agreement to sell the decretal amount did not amount to sale as such (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the agreement to sell the decretal amount did not amount to sale and, as such, the assessed-firm continued to be the legal owner of the amount in question and, if so, whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting the said additions from the hands of the said assessed-firm?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that there ...
Empire Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR214(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. In this application under section 285(2) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner seeks reference of the following question of law to this court : 'That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the clear Explanationn offered by the petitioner, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in upholding that the difference of Rs. 46,584, the interest paid to the bank and that charged from partners on their debit balance be taxed, ignoring the opening debit balance of the partners and of the bank and further ignoring the applicability of section 80V and 182(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the money which was borrowed from the banks was diverted by the partners for personal use. Money was borrowed by paying 15 per cent; interest and only 6 per cent was charged from the partners. 9 per cent interest which was paid by the firm was disallowed. 3. The question which has been framed presumes that the...
Ashok Dhawan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT360; 1990(26)ECC161; 1990(47)ELT218(Del)
Leila Seth, J.(1) Two interesting questions arise in this writ petition : (i) Can the International Airports Authority of India, respondent No 6 charge the petitioner demurrage on baggage, which is kept in its custody by the Customs Authority, who erroneously did not permit the petitioner owner to take it away without payment of duty? And if demurrage is chargeable, then did the Chairman of respondent No. 6, in the facts and circumstances of the case, apply his mind properly in not waiving the said charges wholly (ii) If one of the three packets containing the petitioner's computer (which was admittedly in the custody of the International Airports Authority of India, respondent No 6) is misplaced, can a mandamus issue directing respondent No. 6 and/or respondent 4 and 5 (the Customs Authorities) to trace the missing packet within a specified period and release/deliver it to the petitioner, failing which give the petitioner equivalent compatible items as contained therein and/or money t...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Joint Chief Labour Commissioner and Ap ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR754]; ILR1990Delhi270; 1990LabIC871; (1990)ILLJ408Del
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Indian Oil Corporation Limited has in this writ petition sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated. October Ii, 1984. passed by respondent No. 2-Regional Labour Commissioner and-designated Certifying Officer under Section 5(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Standing Orders Act') and the subsequent appellate order dated May 4, 1987, passed by respondent No. 1- Joint Chief Labour Commissioner, the Appellate Authority under Section 10(2) of the Standing Orders Act.(2) The facts of this case are not in di pute. Two important but interesting questions arise, in this writ petition, firstly, whether the Certifying Authority under the Standing Orders Act has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment of a Standing Order which fixes the age of retirement of the Workmen as 58 years which is in consonance with the model standing order and enhances the age of retirement to 60 y...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Fenner (India) Ltd. Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)ECC115
1. Since these two appeals relate to a common question of classification, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In appeal No. E/1670/88-C filed by the Revenue the facts, in brief, are that the respondents M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. are manufacturers of "PVC impregnated flame resistant colliery conveyer belting" and "PVC inpregnated cotton conveyor belting (food quality). The above products were classified under Tariff sub-heading 3922.90 under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 vide classification list No. 153/3/85-86 dated 7-3-86, effective from 1-3-86 and the same was approved. Later on, it was felt by the Department that the products were correctly classifiable under Tariff sub-heading No. 3920.11 or 3920.12, as the case may be, depending upon whether the products are rigid or flexible, since the products manufactured are in running length and not cut to size. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on 12-6-87 requiring them to show...
Dev Raj Gupta and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT298
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the letter dated 12th June, 1987 whereby the respondent No. 2 has demanded commercialisation and other charges from the petitioners in respect of the multistoreyed commercial building, which has been constructed at 20, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. (2) Briefly stated the facts are that the aforesaid plot of land by virtue of a perpetual lease deed dated, 17th November, 1981 was given to Smt. Rama Bai wife of Dr. Tulsi-Ramby the Governor General in Council. Clause 2(5) and Clause 2(6), which are relevant .of the said letter read as under: - '2(5) The Lessee will not without the previous consent in writing of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi or such officer as the Lesser or the Chief Commissioner, Delhi may authorise in this behalf erect or suffer to be erected on any part of the said demised premises any buildings other than and except the building erected, thereon at the date of these presents. 2(9) The Lessee Will not without ...
Trishla JaIn Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas125(Delhi); 39(1989)DLT403
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) The present petition has been filed by Mrs. Trishla Jain, under Section 113(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the Act), against respondents, thereby claiming the following reliefs : '(a) to pass an order directing the respondent Company to deliver share scrips in respect of 25,782 equity shares -and 8594 debentures to the petitioner or his duly constituted attorney; (b) to direct the company to pay all the unpaid dividends and interests due to the petitioner along with a statement of such dues: (c) to direct the union of India to initiate appropriate action against the company for its failure to pay the dividends and to deliver the shares and debentures; and (d) to grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (2) For better appreciation, of the contentions, as made by learned counsel for parties, it will be useful, to refer to, in brief the facts of the case. (3) Petitioner is a non-resident Indian, permanently r...
Moideen Abbas Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)Crimes505; 39(1989)DLT306
P.K. Babri, J. (1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of order of detention dated April 26, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short Cofeposa Act') with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods and the declaration dated May 26, 1988, issued by respondent NO. 4 under Section 9(1) of the Cofeposa Act. (2) In ground No. Vii appearing at page 21, it has been pleaded that the petitioner had made a representation dated December 20, 1988, addressed to the detaining authority but the same has not been considered by the appropriate authority as the same has been rejected by the specially empowered officer and not by the Central Government. (3) In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri K.L. Verma. who was working as Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministr...
O.P. Anand Vs. State Through Customs Department, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2468; ILR1990Delhi364
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This criminal revision reached for hearing but no one appeared in this matter. I have gone through the files and the impugned orders and proceed to decide the matter on merits. (2) The facts of this case are that the petitioner admittedly stood surety for an accused-Khazan Singh. The surety bond executed by the petitioner contained the term that he would produce the accused on every hearing of the case before any court in which said case was to come up for hearing till final decision of the case and on his failure to produce the accused, if called upon to do so, he undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 to the Government. From accused-Khazan Singa a recovery of 350 pieces of Swiss made watches of the value of Rs. 10,500.00 was effected. A complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act was instituted. It is admitted fact that in spite of numerous efforts being made by the court concerned and numerous opportunities being provided to the petitioner, the presence of the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »