Delhi Court December 1990 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.
Surinder Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT355
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This revision petition was filed after petitioner's appeal against conviction under section 380 Indian Penal Code was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi by order dated 5th September, 1983. (2) The petitioner bad been sent up for trial for an offence under section 380 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he committed theft of some cash and gold ornaments kept in house no. 37, Kailash Apartment, Lala Lajpat Rai Road, New Delhi on 26th June 1977 belonging to R.L. Bhargava and his family. It was also alleged that some of the ornaments were found on the person of the wife of the accused Sunder Lal. (3) The prosecution examined the complainant, his wife as well as investigating officer and although the accused pleaded not guilty and also denied the allegations in the prosecution case, the court on the basis of the evidence and other material on record, held the charge proved against the accused. He was accordingly convicted for the offence under ...
Siri Kishan Dass Vs. Jagdish Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: 43(1990)DLT295
S.C. Jain, J. 1. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that respondents Jagdish, Rameshwar Das and Bansi were tried in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi for offences under Sections 451/34 IPC for ^committing house trespass by entering into house No. 2678 Roshanpura, Nai Sarak, Delhi, in order to assault the complainant Siri Kishan Dass. 2. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, did not find any substance in the prosecution case and thereforee the trial court acquitted all the three respondents of the said offence. 3. The State did not prefer any revision against the said order. However, the complainant Siri Kishan Dass moved this revision petition challenging the order of the trial court. Though the case has been very old and the same has been shown on the board, none appeared on behalf of the parties. 4. The revision against the acquittal order has been pending since 1978, I find that no useful purpose would be served by postponing this peti...
Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT120TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 27-1-1983 confirming the order of the Assistant Collector by which the cost of gunny packing was included in the assessable value of the excisable goods and the sales by the appellant to Western India Glass Works were to be effected in the price lists in Form IV after getting approval. The appellants filed price lists in Part I for their products in which cost of packing was shown under Column 6 but the assessable value claimed for approval did not include the cost of packing. The appellants were asked to show cause on 30-10-1980 as to why the packing in gunny bags could not be considered as an essential part for the purpose of manufacture, storage and clearance of excisable goods from the factory gate and the cost included in the assessable value for the purpose of charging duty. They were also asked to show cause as to why the sales between them and Western India Glass Works should not be considered as "not sales ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Television and Components Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT328TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, against M/s. Television and Components Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 57, GIDC, Industrial Estate, Naroda, Ahmedabad. The appeal was received in the Registry on 16th March, 1990. In column No. 3 the date of communication of the order has been mentioned as 18th December, 1990 and as such, the appeal was filed within the stipulated period. The appellant has filed another appeal which is appeal No. E/1852/90-B1.Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, stated that appeal No. E/1852/90-B1, is a duplicate of appeal No. E/1721/90-B1 and that appeal No. E/1852/90-B1, was filed after the expiry of time and Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR, chooses to keep appeal No. E/1721/90-B1 alive and seeks permission of the Court for the grant of permission for the withdrawal of the appeal and stated that he has got no objection...
Anand Saroop Gupta Vs. Zalim Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT343
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) This Regular Second Appeal, is directed against the judgment dated 20/02/1989, by which, the first Appellate Court (learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi), rejected the plaint, under Order 7 Rule It of Civil Procedure Code.(2) In the appeal, appellant, has raised the following substantial questions of law : '1. Whether the plaint read as a whole did not disclose cause of action.2. Whether a plea that the plaint did not disclose cause of action because it was not asserted that the premises were let forresidential purposes to Smt. Ganga Devi, could be raised for the firsttime in appeal, when no such plea was raised in the written statement or till decision of the suit by the Trial Court.3. Whether from the pleadings and evidence it is apparent that the respondent knew that the above mentioned plea that the premises were let for residential purposes was involved in the trial,and in appeal no grievance about it could be raised.'(3) While admitting the appeal, Mahinde...
Harinder Singh Chaudhary Vs. U.O.i. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT380
M.K. Chawla, J. 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the following applications seeking impalement/intervention in the present proceedings. The applicants are :(1) Crl. M. 1824/90--By Shri Prashant Bhushan; (2) Cr. M. 2356/90-By C.P.I. (M) (3) Cr. M. 2356-A/90--By Janata Dal (4) Cr. M. 2356-B/90--By BJ.P. (5) Cr. M. 2564/90-By Shri N. Ram (6) Cr. M. 2620/90--By C.P.I. (7) Cr. M. 2631/90--By Congress (S) 2. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants in brief are that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the criminal law investigation by way of public interest litigation. He in fact has been set up by the accused/possible prospective accused persons. The public interest litigation is in fact a social action litigation which is intended for the protection of socially and economically deprived sections of the society who are otherwise unable to petition themselves before the court on account of their deprivation. The holders/beneficiaries of foreign ban...
Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC741Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 24-6-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by which he had upheld the order dated 25-11-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Surat rejecting a refund claim for Rs. 1,23,119.41 for the period 1-1-1978 to 13-2-1978 which was received in the Assistant Collector's office on 13-8-1979 as time barred under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants manufacture paper and paper board of different types falling under old Central Excise Tariff Item 17. They applied for refund of duty in terms of Notification 198/76 which is in the nature of an incentive for higher production, which grants duty relief to the extent of 25% of duty payable on excess production, over a base clearance to be fixed by jurisdictional Assistant Collector. On their applying for it, the Assistant Collector fixed the base clearance, by his order dated 6-2-1978. Pending this the appellants paid duty at the effective...
i.G.E. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC124Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee i.e. Elpro International Ltd. and their related person I.G.E. and both the appeals are disposed of by this common order as the issues are inter-connected.2. The assessee (hereinafter referred to as Elpro) was incorporated in 1963 to manufacture low powered X-ray equipment, and some of the components and parts of high powered X-ray equipment of different models and specifications. It has L-4 licence, and manufactures portable and mobile low powered X-ray equipment. This X-ray equipment includes bought out items one of which is X-ray tubes which is manufactured by BEL. X-ray equipment thus manufactured is sold to I.G.E. I.G.E. in turn sell the low powered X-ray equipment to their customers viz; doctors, clinics and hospitals. Since Elpro do not have the facility to manufacture high powered X-ray equipment, they manufacture 3. The parts and components thus manufactured are sold to I.G.E. which in turn purchases X-ray tube unit and high volta...
National Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT325TriDel
1. In this appeal the appellants have prayed for classification of the Block Board under Heading 4410.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 w.e.f. 1-3-1986 and consequential refund of duty on such block board in respect of clearances made from the factory of the appellants during the period from 1-3-1986 to 24-7-1989.2. At the beginning of the hearing the learned Departmental Representative has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal is not maintainable as the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta, in the impugned order, classified the block board of the appellants under Heading 4410.90 and hence the appellants are not aggrieved by the said decision. On going through the impugned order, we observe that the Collector (Appeals) already decided the classification to be under Tariff Heading 4410.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This is the classification which the appellants wanted. The appellant, not, therefore, aggrieved with the impugned orde...
Patsan Hygiene Industries Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC358
1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 8-1-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, by which he had upheld the order dated 16-5-1989 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division I, Vadodara, classifying the product manufactured by the appellants, namely, Sanitary Napkins, under sub-heading 4818.00, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants on 30-9-1988 filed a declaration under Notification No. 11/88, under Rule 174 A, Central Excise Rules to the Assistant Collector, claiming exemption from licensing control as well as from payment of Central Excise duty in which they declared sanitary napkins as classifiable under Heading 6201.00 Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as, "Articles of apparel, not knitted or crocheted, all sorts with "Nil" rate of duty.The Department, however, directed them to classify the goods under Heading 56.01 "Wadding of textile materials and articles thereof (for example Sanitary towels and tampons) ...". Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »