Delhi Court February 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.
S.P. Timber Industries Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi312; 1991(1)ARBLR136(Delhi); 40(1990)DLT471; 1990(18)DRJ301
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B.(2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the decision of the respondents to de-register the petitioner.(3) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacture and supply of various types of wooden and plywood boxes. Crates etc. It appears that vide a letter dated 8th April, 1983 petitioner was registered with the respondents. This letter stated that the petitioner, firm has been registered for the manufacture of various types of ammunition boxes and crates both in plywood and timber, including plywood drums. Paragraph 3 of the letter further stated 'Tender enquiries in respect of items falling within your range of production will be sent to you as and when the requirement arises'. The case of the petitioner is that it it came to know that the respondents had blacklisted the firm and are not issuing any tender enquiries to the petitioner.(4) A showcase notice was issued and the respondents bay filed their reply. T...
Jawahar Lal Khanna Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT502
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quotient of the detention order dated May 22, 1989, 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 engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods and a declaration dated June 1, 1989, issued under Section 9(1) of the Cofeposa Act by respondent No. 3. (2) Counsel for the petitioner has urged various grounds in support of the petition but it is not necessary to refer to all those grounds as this petition is liable to succeed on a very short ground. (3) Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner admittedly was in judicial custody at the time the impugned orders have been made and no application for bail had been moved on behalf of the petitioner and t...
indo Devi and ors. Vs. Panna Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT18
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is directed against the eviction order dated August 7, 1984 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. (2) The respondent landlord had instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(i)(1) read with Section 25B of the Act as far back as in 1976. in paragraph 18(a)(1) of the petition it was alleged :- 'THAT the premises were let to the respondent for residential purpose and the same are required by the petitioner as residence for himself and the members of the family dependent on him. The petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute and that he has no other reasonably/suitable accommodation. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, two married sons, one son aged about 24 years, two daughters-in-law, one grand daughter, two domestic servants. The said whole family of the petitioner is a Joint Hindu Family and the petitioner is Karta of ...
Barski Marek Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT475
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The petitioner by filing this petition has challenged the detention order dated October 19, 1989 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act', by respondent No. 2 with a view to preventing the petitioner from abetting the smuggling of goods. (2) It is not necessary to refer to various grounds pleaded by the petitioner in support of the petition as this petition is liable to succeed on a very short point. (3) The detention order dated October 19, 1989, was admittedly served on the detenu in Jail on October 27, 1989. It is recorded in the grounds of detention that the detaining authority was aware that the petitioner is in judicial custody but, however, the possibility of the petitioner filing bail application and getting enlarged on bail cannot be ruled out and unless prevented the petitioner may indulge in prejudicial activities in the similar manner or otherwise. A bail ap...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Weldekar Laminates Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC179
1. By the above-mentioned stay application, the applicant-Collector has prayed for stay of operation of the impugned order-in-appeal No.V(CH.39)18-15/89/2342, dated 31-3-1989 (issued on 17-8-1989) passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, against which the Appeal No. E/3974/89-C has been filed by the Department. Earlier, a stay application filed by the Revenue in Appeal No. E/2068/89-C was dismissed vide Stay Order No. 227/89-C, dated 17-11-1989 in view of the fact that in Order Nos. 552-572/89-C, dated 29-9-1989 in the case of Meghdoot Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, the Tribunal classified (i) paper-based decorative laminated sheets under Heading 4818.90 upto 28-2-1988 and Heading 4823.90 from 1-3-1988, and (ii) paper-based industrial laminated sheets (electrical grade) under Tariff Heading 8546.00, which were also the classification indicated by the Collector (Appeals) in his order-in-appeal No. V-2(48 CETA)2877/88/2478, dated 1-2-19...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC354Tri(Delhi)
1. The Government of India had issued a Show Cause Notice under Sec.36(2) of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 for review of the Order in Appeal No. 1430/79 issue under No. V-2(132) 1071/79, dated 19-11-1979 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay on the issue of including the value of the containers used in the packing of the vegetable product. The Appellate Collector has held that the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Union of India v. Mansingha Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1979 (4) ELT (J 158) (Bom) is applicable and allowed the cost of the containers to be deducted from the assessable value and allowed consequential refund.2. The revision petition was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal. The Show Cause Notice, dated ,28-8-1980 purported to review the order of the Appellate Collector on the ground that the question of inclusion of the cost of the containers have been held by different High Courts differently. In the case of Auro Food Products v. Union...
Smart P. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT407
Kirpal J.1. The question which has been referred for consideration to this larger Bench is whether an applicant has a right of being heard by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal when an application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is filed rectifying any mistake apparent from record. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner had filed two appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 and 1983-84. The main ground in the appeal related to the claim of assessability of income from sub-letting of property, amounting to Rs. 1,21,000. The case of the petitioner was that the income from sub-letting was not liable to tax at all and, secondly, such income should not be considered as income covered by any other head of income mentioned in section 14. In the alternative, it was also submitted that such income, if at all, could be brought to assessment only under the head 'Business'. 3. By order dated August, 22, 1988, the Inco...
State Bank of India Vs. Amritsar Engineering Works and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: I(1990)BC288; 40(1990)DLT463
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) I.A. 4483 of 1987 has been moved on behalf of the plaintiff bank under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased defendant no. 4 Smt. Daya Kaur. It is alleged that on or about 6.11.1986 it transpired to the applicant that Smt. Daya Kaur had died. But the date of her death could not be ascertained despite efforts. On the basis of the information gathered by the field staff of the plaintiff bank it was found that the deceased left behind S/shri Manmohan Singh, Baljit Singh, Surjit Singh and Balbir Singh as her legal heirs and thereforee a prayer is made that they may be ordered to be substituted in place of the deceased Daya Kaur. (2) The .second .application was moved on 19.9.1988 under Section 5 of the Limitation. Act read with. order 22 rule 9 and Section 151 of. the Code for condensation of delay, and setting aside, the abatement of the suit against the decea...
Khera Handloom Supply Vs. O.B. Exports and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT343; 1990(18)DRJ337
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) Plaintiff filed a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,50,502/10 P. with costs of the suit and pending and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount. Defendants were served with the summons and they put io appearance through Sh. B.L. Anand Advocate within ten days of the service. Thereafter commons for judgment were issued against the defendants J, No. 674/87 wa also-moved on behalf of the plaintiff praying that defendants may be allowed to be served through their counsel and that they may be given dusty notice for service of the defendants through their counsel. The application was allowed by the Deputy Registrar. It led to the filing of 1.A. Mo. 719/87 on behalf of the defendants staling that the address for service of notice/summon on them at their residential address had been given and thereforee the summon...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Ram Prakash Jagdish Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT497; 1990(18)DRJ265; 1990RLR219
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) Plaintiff bank filed a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 3,95,912.70 comprising the principal and interest accrued and other charges as on 8-7-1984 against the defendants with costs and pending and future interest. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm with defendants 2 and 3 as its partners. Defendants requested the bank and opened cash credit hypothecation limit with the branch office of the plaintiff bank in H Block, C. Circus, New Delhi in February, 1979 to the extent of Rs. 1 lac. Security by way of hypothecation of books debts was offered which was accepted by the plaintiff bank. The aforesaid facility was availed of by the defendants during the course of operation of the account. The disbursements and/or transfer made from the account were also confirmed in writing Defendants 1, 2 and 3 also requested the bank to grant them temporary bill discontinuing/cheques purchase facility which was also allowed by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »