Delhi Court March 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.
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Uoi Vs. Cegat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(50)ELT234(Del)
S.B. Wad, J. 1. CW. 3023/89 is filed by the Union of India, while CW. 2286/89 is filed by M/s. Hindustan Photo Films ., a Government of India concern. They have challenged the legality and validity of the order of Customs, Excise and Gold Control Tribunal dated 8-8-1989, holding that neither the Union of India nor Hindustan Photo Films . are 'aggrieved persons' for filing an appeal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was filed by the said two petitioners against the order of the Collector of Bombay dated 1-6-89 clearing the imported consignment of 59 jumbo rolls for M/s. Northern Plastics Limited of what they described as 'Cinematographic Colour Films (unexposed) Positive'. The said petitioners had submitted before the Tribunal that the said importation was itself illegal, they have also prayed in these writ petition that this Court should declare that the importation is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act and the notifications there under. Th...
Ghanshyam Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi59; 41(1990)DLT96
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The petitioner Shri Ghanshyam Singh was nominated as a Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (for short 'IFFCO') by the Government ofIndia by a letter of 30/03/1988. The nomination was made under Bye-law No. 33 of IFFCO. It was to take effect from 31/03/1988 when theBoard was to be re-constituted. The nomination was not for affixed Period but 'valid until further orders'. In partial modification of the letter dated 30/03/1988, the Government of India by letter dated the 1 9/12/1989 nominated Shri Satbir Singh Kadiyan, Member, Legislative Assembly of the State of Haryana (respondent No. 3 herein) on the said Board of Directors in place of the petitioner herein. The letter was to take effect immediately and the nomination as in the case of Shri Ghanshyam Singh, was 'until further orders'. That letter is Annexure. 4 to the writ petition. The said respondent assumed office as Director of 1FFCO w.e.f. 20/12/1989 vice the ...
Krishan Kumar Vs. Harnam Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi343
R. L. Gupta, J.(1) This order will dispose off I.A. No. 1810/89 and I.A. No. 7587/89. is No. 1810/89 is filed by the plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code'). It is alleged that the principal defense raised by the defendants is that the real owner of the property was late Sh. Harnam Dass and that the plaintiff is only a Benamidar. Most of the issues framed on 26-11-1982 showed that they arose out of pleadings by the dependants that plaintiff is not the real owner of the property in suit. During the pendency of the suit, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act') was enacted by the Parliament with the object of prohibiting Benami transactions and the right to recover property held Benami and for matters enacted therewith or incidental thereto. Section 4(2) of the Act it is alleged, squarely applies to the present case because, it provides that no defense based on any right i...
Narender Singh Oberoi Vs. Hari Dass Sood and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT354
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) This appeal of Narinder Singh Oberoi is directed against the two orders dated October 31, 1986 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Execution No. 90 of 1984. Vide order in Execution No. 90 of 1984 and Execution Application No. 317 of 1985 the learned Single Judge has directed the Registrar of this Court to obtain from the judgment-debtor an application to the Land & Development Officer for obtaining permission for transfer of the disputed portion of property No. 4, Hailey Road, New Delhi in favor of the decree-holder. It has further been directed that after obtaining the necessary permission as aforesaid the Registrar shall upon the judgment- debtor to execute the sale-deed failing which the sale deed shall be executed by the Registrar for and on behalf of the judgment-debtor. Vide other of even date the learned Single Judge dismissed E.A. 235 of 1984 and E.A. 64 of 1985 as premature. (2) It would be necessary to give facts in brief to appreciate the argumen...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(29)LC152(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.1. CW. 3023/89 is filed by the Union of India, while CW. 2286/89 is filed by M/s. Hindustan Photo Films ., a Government of India concern. They have challenged the legality and validity of the order of Customs, Excise and Gold Control Tribunal dated 8.8.1989, holding that neither the Union of India nor Hindustan Photo Films . are 'aggrieved persons' for filing an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was filed by the said two petitioners against the order of the Collector of Bombay dated 1.6.1989 clearing the imported consignment of 59 jumbo rolls for M/s. Northern Plastics Limited of what they described as 'Cinematographic Colour Films (Unexposed) Positive'. The said petitioners had submitted before the Tribunal that the said importation was Itself illegal, they have also prayed in these writ petitions that this Court should declare that the importation is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act and the notifications there under. T...
Arvind Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD581(Delhi)
ORDERPer J. P. Bengra, J. M. - There is an appeal of the assessed as well as of the Department against an order of the CIT (Appeals) pertaining to assessment year 1982-83 and appeal by the Department against an order of the CIT (Appeals) whereby he has allowed deduction of 25% u/s 80-O in spite of the fact that assessed was running under a loss (the order of CIT (Appeals) has arised out of the order of the ITO giving effect to the order of the CIT (Appeals) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act). There is another appeal of the Department against an order of the CIT (Appeals) pertaining to assessment year 1983-84. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, thereforee, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being disposed of by a single order.2. The grievance of the assessed in its appeal for assessment year 1982-83 is that the CIT (Appeals) wrongly restricted the deduction u/s 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to 25% of income from contract relating to construction of 27...
Standard Watch Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC310Tri(Delhi)
1. The learned counsel stated that this is an appeal against the order of Addl. Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. The DRI officers have searched their residential premises and recovered inter alia 19600 watches.3. Subsequently 18540 watches were released even before the issue of show cause notice and the impugned show cause notice was issued in respect of 793 watches on the alleged ground that they had been acquired in violation of law.4. During adjudication, the learned Addl. Collector himself ordered release of all the rest of the watches except 13. He confiscated these 13 watches on the ground that these HMT watches contained watch movements of foreign origin and were not genuine HMT watches.5. During the course of adjudication the appellant inter alia brought it to the notice of the adjudicating authority that the seizure had not been properly effected and the seized goods had not been sealed and even when they were brought before the adjudicating authority the seal did not bear,...
Super Urethane Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC77Tri(Delhi)
1. These five appeals involve common issues, hence they were heard together, clubbed and disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, the learned DR for the respondents.3. The first and foremost point to be decided in these appeals is whether rigid polyurethane foam is classifiable under sub-heading No.3921.11/3921.90 as claimed by the appellants or under sub-heading No.3909.60 as held by the authorities below under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.4. Shri A.K. Jain, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that rigid polyurethane foam manufactured by the appellants is in the shape of bun i.e. form of block having geometrical shape which falls under sub-heading 3921.11 of the new Tariff and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 243/83-C.E., dated 9-9-1983. He explained that the Department grossly erred in classifying this item under the sub-heading 3909.60 on the two grounds: (ii) t...
General Industries Corpn. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD524(Delhi); (1990)37TTJ(Del)198
ORDERPer Sharma - This appeal filed by the assessed it directed against the order dated 11-2-1987 passed by the CIT (A) for the assessment year 1982-83.2. For the assessment year 1982-83, the assessed has been assessed in the status of URF. The assessed during the accounting year ending on 30th September, 1981 relevant to the assessment year under consideration wrote off an amount Rs. 1,42,404 and made corresponding credit entries in the profit and loss account. The income assessed at Rs. 1,71,000 by the ITO, thus, included an amount of Rs. 1,42,404 being sundry creditors written off. There is no discussion in the assessment order regarding this amount, But before the CIT (A) it was stated that before the ITO it was claimed that the said amount should be excluded from its income. Since, there was no discussion in the ITOs order regarding the amount of Rs. 1,42,404 and CIT (A) asked for the comments and report of the ITO who vide his report dated 28-1-1987 pointed out that the assessed ...
Maheshwari International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: (1993)(67)ELT829TriDel
1. These two appeals are disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is common.2. The appellants imported 5,25,800 and 1,75,200 pieces of Cleaning Cassettes under bill of entry No. IGM 1 909/68-69 dated 21st December, 1981 and bill of entry No. IGM1909/66 dated 22nd December, 1981 respectively from M/s. Viva Magnetics Ltd., Hong Kong. These goods were indented through M/s. Tisco Computer Tapes Ltd. as per their indent No.TCTP/VP/02 dated 24th March 1981 at Hong Kong $ 0.45 per piece. The L/C No. 0400681054 in respect of both the consignments was opened on 30th March, 1982 through Syndicate Bank.3. In pursuance of information that the appellants and M/s. Marda Agents, Bombay are indulging in under-invoicing of their imports from Hong Kong, the premises belonging to the appellants and M/s. Marda Agent, residential premises of Shri O.P. Marda, office and factory premises of M/s. Tisco Tapes Pvt. Ltd. were searched and following documents were seized. (i) file marked M-8 containin...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »