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.
Easmie Mukand Lal Vs. Mukand Lal Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT25; 1991(20)DRJ196
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The case has come to us on a reference made by Additional District Judge under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. In spite of notice having been served, there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents.(2) Briefly, the relevant facts stated are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized at Delhi on 11th March, 1971 according to Indian Christian Marriage Act. For some time the couple lived happily and on 22nd December 1971 were blessed with a female child named, Sujata and on 3rd January, 1973 with another female child named Meenakshi. The husband-respondent no. 1, however, could not remain faithful to the petitioner-wife for long and developed illicit relations with one Karuna, the respondent no 2. On account of his having developed unholy alliances with Karuna his attitude towards the petitioning-wife became indifferent, harsh and cruel. He used to beat her and made her life miserable on account of his involvement wit...
Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corpn. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)(36)LC403Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the refund claim of the appellant is barred by limitation.2. The appellant manufactures vanaspati, the ingredients of which are vegetable non-essential oil, nickel catalyst, etc. The waste products that arise in the process of manufacture are acid oil, spent earth, nickel catalyst and hardened soap stock. Under the directions of the Range Office, the appellant debited an amount of Rs. 93,174.95 in their PLA on 25.4.1979 towards duty on acid oil under T.I. 12 for the period 1.4.1973 lo 22.1.1979. Again, on 17.1.1981, an amount of Rs. 1,18,176.56 was deposited towards duty against a confirmed demand on acid oil under T.I. 68 for the period 1.3.1975 to 22.1.1978. A refund claim for refund of Rs. 93,174.95 was filed on 20.1.1981 on the ground that duty cannot be levied and collected under two different tariff items. The plea of the appellant that the duty having been paid under mistake of law, the bar of limitation of 6 months...
Punjab National Fertilizers and Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC166Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellant is a Public Limited Company having its factory at Naya Nan-gal in the District of Ropar, Punjab. The appellant was granted an Industrial Licence for the manufacture and marketing of 66,000 tonnes per annum of Soda Ash and 66,000 tonnes per annum of Ammonium Chloride Fertilizer. The commercial production of the two products commenced on 26th January 1985. The appellant claims that he manufactures Soda Ash by employing a sophisticated chemical process, known as 'modified solvay' or 'dual process' which is a modification of Conventional Solvay Process for Soda Ash manufacture. It is further claimed by the appellant he had been regularly filing classification list in respect of Soda Ash and Ammonium Chloride Fertilizer and had been clearing the goods after following the proper procedure and payment of applicable duty. His further claim is that he had furnished to the jurisdictional authorities the complete details of the process of manufacture, the reactions that take pl...
Usha Malhotra Vs. G.S. Uppal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: 1991RLR223
D.P. Wadlma, J.(1) By this order, I propose to dispose of (i) a petition filed u/S. 20 of the Arbitration Act (the'Act'), it being Suit No. 453-A of 1986, by Gurbaksh Singh Uppal and his wife Smt. Raj Kaur Uppal ('Uppals'), the two petitioners against the sole respondent Smt. Usha Malhotra, and (ii) an application, being I.A. 5831 of 1989, u/S. 34 of the Act, filed again by Uppals, the defendants in a suit (Suit No. 2354 of 1988) for specific performance of an agreement to sell filed by Usha Malhotra.(2) The disputes between the parties concern property No. A-14/4, Vasant Vihar. The plot which measures 413 square Yards was held on perpetual leasehold basis by Uppals from a Society which had developed the colony. In fact, the society was the lessee, with the President of India as the Lesser, and the Uppals as the sub-lessees. In the petitions, Uppals say that since under the sub-lease they were required to erect a building they, with that view, entered into an agreement of construction ...
M.C. Chaturvedi Vs. R.K. Chaturvedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT367; 1991(20)DRJ120; 1991RLR108
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) M.C. Chaturvedi has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Criminal Procedure Code .) praying that the complaint field by R.K. Chaturvedi respondent herein against him for the offences under Sections 499/500 Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Shri P.D. Jarwal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi may be quashed.(2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition ate as under : M.C.Chatnrvedi petitioner is the elder brother of R.K. Chaturvedi respondent (hereinafter referred to us the complainant. They have two sisters, namely, Smt. Bachi DeviandSmt.PadmaPaBdey. Their father ShriJagdish Pershad -was the owner of house No 11-A/I 6 Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Held on 18/7/1979.(3) Disputes arose between the petitioner and the complainant over the partition of the property left by their father. Accordingly the complaintant filed s suit being No. 1242 of 1981 for partition and rendition of ac...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ991; 43(1991)DLT290
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) The present appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, appellant herein, under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the judgment dated March 22, 1982, whereby, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, has awarded a sum of. Rs. 54,000.00 in favor of the claimants, (respondents 1 to 6 herein). (3) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the appeal are, that on September 4, 1979, at about 8.05 p.m., deceased Laik Ram (hereinafter called the deceased), boarded the bus No. Dlp 6733, from Bawana Bus stand, driven by respondent no. 7. Respondent no. 8 was the owner of the bus, which was insured with the appellant. When the bus reached near Bawana Brick Klin, deceased asked the driver to stop the bus. Upon this, the driver applied the brakes, but, when the deceased was still in the process of getting down, the driver gave race and the bus started suddenly at a fast speed, which caused fall of the deceased from the bus. Laik Ram was...
Seagull Laboratories (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT3; ILR1991Delhi290; [1991]81STC90(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is, inter alia, to the provisions of section 4(2)(a)(v) 3rd proviso of the Delhi Sales Tax Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in so far as the said provision includes in the turnover of the petitioner the value of the goods which had been purchased by it on the basis of its registration certificate, and which goods were not utilised as per the said registration certificate. (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is a company registered at. Delhi, both under the State Act as welt as under the Central Sales Tax Act, which has branches outside Delhi, and it carries on business of manufacture of medicines in a factory situated at Delhi. On the strength of its registration certificate, the petitioner has been purchasing the raw material locally against the statutory forms St 1/ST 35 and also from outside Delhi against declaration form 'C' under the Central Sales-tax Act. According to the petitioner, it manufa...
Debi Pershad Prayag Dutt Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC747Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants, herein, imported a consignment of Aromatic Chemicals and Synthetic Essential Oil through the Calcutta Port which include, inter alia, Krishna Musk, Gardenia and Rose. The goods were assessed duty free under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme (DEEC) pending testing of sample. Krishna Musk has been found to be a blended preparation; Gardenia and Rose have been found to be synthetic essential oil. The goods were covered by Advance Licence dated 7-3-1981 and DEEC 002320 dated 28-9-1981. Both the licence and DEEC are specific for Synthetic Perfumery Compounds and Natural Essential oils." The relevant Bill of Entry was filed on 23-3-1981 and the relevant entry took place on 29-3-1982. On these days, the relevant Notification 117/Cus., dated 9-6-1978, as amended by Notification No. 105/81, dt.3-4-1981 was in force and the relevant item admissible for duty free import was essential oil and resinoid for perfumery, cosmetic and toilet preparation. The department's ...
Rhone Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC174Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue in both the appeals being the same, they were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.2. At the outset, after hearing both sides, we allowed the application filed by the appellants for change of the name of the appellants in the cause tide from "May & Baker (India) Limited" to "Rhone Poulenc (India) Limited.3. The appellants imported "PHOLCODINE B.P., a narcotic drug, on which the customs authorities levied additional duty of customs corresponding to the central excise duty leviable on goods falling under Item 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('CET for short) read with the provisions of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (M.T.P. Act, for short). The appellants filed claims for refund of the said duty on the ground that the goods being a bulk drug were exempted from payment of additional duty of customs in terms of Central Excise Exemption Notifications No. 234/82 and 234/86.It...
K.C.A. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT472TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot ordering :- (a) Confiscation of the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 but giving the option to M/s. K.C.A. Ltd., Jamnagar to clear them on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-; (b) Imposing a penalty of Rs. l lac on M/s. K.C.A. Ltd., Jamnagar under Section 112 of the Customs Act; That 37 drums containing 2420 Kgs. Meta Phenyline Diamine/4-Sulphuric Acid (hereinafter referred to as MPDSA) and 5 drums containing 270 Kgs. Para Nitre Aniline (hereinafter referred to as PNA) were seized by Superintendent of Central Excise, Jamnagar on 21-11-1983 on the ground that they were being illicitly despatched to Bombay. After completion of investigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s. K.C.A., Jamnagar - the appellants - on 7-5-1984 to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 citing contravention of the I.T.C. order 1955 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »