Delhi Court March 1990 Judgments

Kesho Ram and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC216

1. The appellants have sought for setting aside the Order in Original passed by Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi by his Order No.F.No. VIII/12/ACU/10/563/87, dated 19-10-1987 in which the Additional Collector had ordered photographic lenses imported by the appellants valued at Rs. 1,94,865/- to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and granted redemption of the same on payment of fine for Rs. 50,000/-.2. The appellants had filed Bill of Entry No. 41152, dated 28-7-1985 for clearance of goods described as "photographic lenses" valued at Rs. 1,94,865/- against licence No. P/W/0421338, dated 31-12-1985, The department on scrutiny found that the imported items fall under Sl. No.471((3) of Appx. 3A of Import Policy 85-88 requiring specific licence for clearing the imported goods.3. A Show Cause Notice dated 2-9-1987 was issued for confiscation under Section 111(d) and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. The appellants had contended before the lower authoritie...

ScIndia Potteries and Services Ltd. and ors. Vs. Deputy Land and Devel ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1990)DLT261; 1990RLR311

Mahinder Narain, J. (1) By this application, the applicants in C.M. 1750 of 1989, made in Civil Writ No. 1295 of 1988, die Union of India, pray that the interim order passed by this Court (Chief Justice R. N. Pyne and Justice G. C. Jain) staying the operation of the re-entry order dated 30-6-1988, on 4-7-1988, be vacated, or alternatively another order be substituted to the effect that : the answering respondents shall not take physical possession of the property in dispute during the pendency of the writ petition. However, the petitioner shall not in? any manner whatsoever, sell, transfer, exchange, lease, encumber, mortgage or change in any manner whatsoever the real and effective ownership and control over the property in dispute. It may be clarified that the shares of Scindia Potteries and Services Ltd. (formerly known as Gwalior Pottery (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.), shall not be transferred in any manner, whatsoever, legally or equitably, to any third party or entity'. (2) The petitioners, ...

Union of India Vs. Gulam Nabi Azad and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1990)DLT115; 1990RLR242

B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 7th March 1990, the effect of which is that the respondent No. I has been permitted to stay in the premises which had (originally been allotted to him by the Government up to 20th April 1990. (2) Briefly staled the facts are that the respondent No. 1 was a member of Lok Sabha and he had been allotted I, Rajaji Marg. New Delhi. He was also a member of the Council of Ministers in 1982 and, according to respondent No. 1, he was allotted category Viii house because of his long standing in the parliament and also in view of the fact that he had been appointed a member of Council of Ministers. (3) The 8th Lok Sabha, of which respondent No. 1 was a member, was dissolved on 27th November 1989. It is a common ground that under the Rules of allotment, the respondent No, 1 was entitled, as of right, to retain the premises in question for a period of one month thereafter. This period expired on 27th December 1989. (4) It ...

P.K. Kuriakose and Others Vs. Air Force Naval Housing Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Avtar Pennathur, Member: (1) This is a complaint dated 25.9.89 filed by 'B' Type Ground Floor Flats Owners of Neelamber Apartments Pitam Pura, Delhi. The construction of this Group Housing Complex for retired/serving personnel had been undertaken under Self Financing Scheme by the Air Force Naval Housing Board in 1983. The grievance of the complainants is that all the allottees were charged equal tentative cost of the flats irrespective of the fact whether the flat was in the ground floor or at the top floor. Scooter garrages at an additional cost of Rs. 5,000/- were provided to the upper Ground Flat owners. (2) It is alleged that the plinth area for 3 scooter garrages each of 26 sq. ft., an area of 78 sq ft. has been taken away from the ground floor flat plinth area and that this must be adequately compensated. Besides, the cost escalation from Rs. 87,000/- to Rs. 1,16,940/- per flat must be corrected to the cost of level of April, 1987. (3) The respondent in its reply has stated that...

Hukum Chand and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC136Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order No.S/10-203/NK/89 SIIB dated 14-9-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The appellants M/s. Hukam Chand & Sons imported 25 bales of goods described as "Wool Waste"-Wool Waste Type No. J 1407 Carpet thread waste totally mutilated wool/Nylon 80/20" in the Bill of entry dated 21-6-1989 filed by them for the clearance of the said goods. The assessable value of the goods was declared at Rs. 162977/- and relevant import licence was produced for the clearance of the goods. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 55/87-Cus. dated 1-3-1987 as amended by Notification No. 180/87-Cus. dated 20-4-1987 on the ground that 'wool waste' was classifiable under CTH 5103.20 read with Cus.Notification No. 108/89 and the rate of import duty applicable on the said waste of wool was 20% + 50% + Nil CVD + 0.05% Cess. The goods were examined and examination report revealed the following contents :- "Woollen threads...

M. Basheer Ahammed Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC271

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-original No. 6/84 (C.No. V/59/15/1/83 Cx. Adj.) dated 10-4-1984 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Cochin.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant was charged for having contravened the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and of the Central Excise Rules inasmuch as he had engaged in the sound recording of Cassettes and sold the same without a central excise licence. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 26-4-1983 was issued requiring him to pay the central excise duty on the removal of sound recorded cassettes for the period from July, 82 to November, 1982.Penalties were also initiated charging that he has removed the goods without payment of duty with wilful intent to evade payment of central excise duty, failed to file classification/price list and for not maintaining proper books of account as required under the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules. This show cau...

Mahalingam Shelly Co. Vs. Npc Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990RLR410

S. Duggal, J.(1) I have given my earnest thought to the matter in the light of the respective contentions canvassed by learned counsel for parties. I find that the basic principle that emerges on reading of all the decisions as cited on both sides, is that the terms of the bank guarantee are the most relevant, and in fact, the sole guiding factor, and further determining point in such a case would be the manner in which the bank guarantee has been invoked by the beneficiary, and in that context the terms of the demand letter assume great relevance as well as significance. (2) I must record at the outset that in view of the conspectus of the judicial authorities, the question as to the nature and import of a bank guarantee is settled, to the effect that it constitutes an independent contract between the bank and the beneficiary, and the existence of any dispute between the principal contractor and the said beneficiary or even pendency of litigation by way of civil suit or arbitration pr...

Sharma's Nursing Home Vs. State and Anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1991CriLJ140; 41(1990)DLT47; ILR1991Delhi189

Bahri, J. (1) M/S. Dr. Sharma's Nursing Home through its Director Dr. P. Sharma has filed this revision petition seeking setting aside of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi dated July 31, 1989 by which-the had allowed the revision petition filed before her against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated June 8, 1987 by which the complaint filed by Prem Shanker had been dismissed and it was held that there was sufficient material to proceed against Dr. Sharma, Director. Dr. Sucheta Datta and M/s. Dr. Sharma's Nursing Home for an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420. Indian Penal Code. (2) I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner at the preliminary stage and have gone through the trial Court file as well as the impugned order. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge appears to be well based because taking the allegations made in the complaint and prima facie proved by leading preliminary evidence by the complainant it is eviden...

Roshan Lal Vs. Pyare Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1990)DLT82

P.K. Babri, J. (1) This petition has been moved under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of the bail of Pyare Lal-respondent No. 1 and Mohan Lal-respondent No. 2. It is not necessary to refer to the grounds pleaded in the main petition seeking cancellation of the bail because the petitioner had filed additional grounds seeking cancellation of bail of the respondents which appear to have a lot of force. (2) The bail was granted to respondents 1 & 2 in the murder case and a condition was specifically imposed in the order granting bail that the accused shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Ashok Vihar without permission of the court concerned. (3) The petitioner has alleged that on October 14, 1989. at about 12.15 P.M. the said respondents 1 &2 had entered the jurisdiction of the Police Station Ashok Vihar and they were armed with daggers and had come near the houses of the complainant and witness Ram Kumar and the police had app...

Anand Prakash Mahal and anr. Vs. Motia Garg and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 41(1999)DLT112

Bahri, J.(1) This application has been moved seeking restoration of Cri. M. (M) 441 of 1987 and for deciding it after giving an opportunity of addressing the arguments on merits. (2) Anand Prakash and Shakuntala Mahal have filed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them before the Magistrate in complaint case No. 860 of 1983 for offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pleading that Magistrate had earlier passed an order discharging the petitioner but later on had issued warrants of arrest of the petitioners on their failure to appear before the Court on subsequent hearing. (3) Notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted and complainant was duly served in the main petition and matter was being adjourned from one date to another for hearing arguments. Ultimately, H. C. Goel, J. (as his Lordship then was) on May ...