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.
Bhupinder Singh Vs. Narinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2265; II(1990)DMC214; 1990RLR267
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This petition has been brought u/s 401 read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code') seeking quashment of the order dt. 25.1.85 passed by Ms. Deepa Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by which she allowed the petition moved by respondent No. 1 u/s 125 of the Code and awarded maintenance to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. This was an ex-parte order granting maintenance. (2) Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order pleading that no proper service of the notice issued u/s 125 r.w. S. 126 of the Code had been effected on the petitioner and the mode of service adopted by the M.M. by issuance of registered notices and ultimately publication of a notice in a newspaper was not in consonance with the procedure for effecting service envisaged in the provisions of the Code and thus, on the face of it the ex-parte order made against the petitioner was illegal. He has also urged that the newspaper in which the publication had b...
Parveen Gupta and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT166; 1992(23)DRJ563
S.B. Wad, J. (1) On 9-2-1989 the Delhi Administration issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 of the Act. The notification in question, does not state as to what was the urgency in invoking the provision of Section 17 and depriving the petitioner of the right of being heard under Section 5-A of the Act,. On 7th February. 1990, a notification under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has now been issued and the Collector is directed to take orders for the acquisition of the land. From this notification it is clear that taking possession of the land was thus delayed by one year which shows that there was no urgency when Section 4 notification was issued. The facts of this case are fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dera Phalauli Vs . State of Punjab and others. : [1980]1SCR93 and the decision of this Court in Dhani Ram and Others v. Union of India and others (C.W. No. 3356/87) decided on 10.3.1989. The writ petition succeed...
Amar Raj Lall Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD369(Delhi)
ORDER1. This is an assesseds second appeal arising out of his assessment for assessment year 1975-76. I have heard the learned counsel for the assessed and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before me.2. In this case the assessed paid an advance tax of Rs. 64,821 in respect of his estimated income of the accounting year ending 31-3-1975 assessable for assessment year 1975-76. The assessed filed a return of income on the 30th June, 1975 and then filed a revised return on 31-3-1979. No assessment was, however, made on the basis of those returns as the same were not traceable. Since according to the income returned by the assessed he was entitled to a sizeable refund, he approached the concerned authorities pointing out that the assessment has become barred by time and the entire amount of Rs. 64,821 be refund to him. The assessed has placed before me a copy of the letter dated 9-3-1984 addressed by him counsel to the Inspecting Asstt. Commissione...
Commercial Aviaiton and Travel Co. Inc. Vs. N. Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT347
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) By this petition filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . the petitioners pray for quashing of their prosecution lor offences under sections 276C(1). 277 read with section 278-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') initiated on a criminal complaint having been filed by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle Xiv, New Delhi respondent herein). (2) Petitioner No. I is a partnership firm constituted by petitioners No. 2 to 4 and one other, namely, Smt. V. Panna Lal and as per allegations in the complaint, all of them were in charge and responsible to the firm petitioner No. 1 for the conduct of its business during the period relevant to this case, namely, assessment year 1983-84. The allegation is that in the return filed for the aforesaid assessment year on 28th September 1983, a declaration showing a total loss of Rs. 1,08,167 was filed in the practiced proforma, signed and verified by H. 1. Malhotra, petitioner No. 2 herein, as one of the part...
Chatterji Energy Systems Pvt. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT130TriDel
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 2333/88-BCH dated 27-5-88 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported a consignment of "Solar tube mats" at the port of Bombay in December, 1984. The goods were initially assessed by the customs authorities under heading No. 84.17(2) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ("the Customs Tariff", for short) at 60% ad valorem plus auxiliary duty of customs plus additional duty of customs.However, on the basis of the examination in the docks, the goods were reassessed under Heading No. 40.05/16(1) of the tariff at 100% ad valorem plus auxiliary duty of customs plus additional duty of customs, thus entailing payment by the appellants of an additional sum of duty.After clearance of the goods on payment of the duty so assessed, the appellants filed a claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 1,58,115.20. The claim was based on the ground that th...
Ellora Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC273Tri(Delhi)
1. The order of the Collector of G.E. Bombay, dated 30.6.1982, levying duty on processed art silk fabrics removed without payment of duty from April 1973 to March 1974 and imposing a penalty, has been challenged in the appeal before us 2. The appellants are licensed processors of man-made fabrics and cotton fabrics. A show cause notice was issued to them on 28.3.1977, alleging that (a) they manufactured and removed art silk fabrics measuring 2,52, 883.20 L. Mtrs. valued at Rs. 21,11,547.1 during the period from April, 1973 to March, 1974 without determining and payment of Central Excise Duty by debit entry in their personal ledger account prior to the removal of the said goods without the cover of valid Central Excise transport documents viz, G.P. is and without accounting the said goods in the statutory Central Excise Accounts. (b) they misdeclared the description of a quantity of 8,56,971.15 L. Mtrs. of processed art silk fabrics removed by them during the period from April, 1973 to...
Gulab Rai Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1990
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi97
ORDERB. N. Kirpal, J.1. The challenge in this bunch of writ petitions, which are being decided by this common judgment, is to the resolution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi whereby it approved the proposal of the Delhi Electricity Supply Committee to enhance minimum consumption guarantee charges from Rs. 40/ - per KVA to Rs. 340/ -per KVA in respect of Arc/Induction furnaces.2. The petitioners have set up/installed furnaces for the manufacture of castings and have their factories in Delhi. These furnaces have been set up after having obtained valid licenses from the respondent-Corporation for the manufacture of castings.3. One of the important raw-materials for the petitioners is electricity. Each of the petitioner has obtained electricity from the respondents and the sanctioned load is more than 100 KWS. The exact sanctioned load varies, depending upon the size and capacity of the furnaces set up by the different petitioners, but each one of them has a sanctioned load of more th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›