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.
State of Haryana Vs. Smt. K. Vimala Raghachari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC25
N.N. Goswamy, J.1. This judgment will dispose of F.A.0.47 of 1980 filed by the State of Haryana as also the cross-appeal being F.A.0.89/80 filed by the claimants. Both these appeals are directed against the award dated 30th October, 1979 passed by Motor Claims Tribunal, Delhi.2. Dr. K.V. Raghavachari was employed as Lecturer in Chemistry Department of the University of Delhi. He was knocked down by the bus owned by the State of Haryana and being driven by Shri Amarjit Singh driver at the relevant time.3. The widow and three children of the deceased, here in after called the claimants, filed the petition under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. It was alleged that on 23.3.1972 at about 5.35 p.m. the deceased was going home on bicycle from the University of Delhi to his residence at Model Town, Delhi. He was traveling on a bicycle on G.T. Road and when he reached near the second bus stop of Model Town, he slowed down and after giving p...
Avtar Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT235TriDel
1. Both these cases arise out of the same order in original and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The learned counsel states that in these cases a consignment of cigarette lighters was booked at Bangkok for Kabul and was being transhipped through Delhi when it was detained, examined and seized by the Delhi Customs on 11-11-1985.3. A show cause notice was issued in May 1986 asking the appellants to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and they should not be penalised under Section 112.4. The appellant Shri Avtar Singh of Bangkok was the consigner and the appellant Shri Saran Singh of Kabul was the consignee.5. It was their contention that the show cause notice merely shows the month of issue as May 1986 and does not indicate the date of issue.6. It appears to have been despatched on 12-5-1986 to the consignee (at his Kabul address).7. Presumably it was issued on the same day to the consigner (at Bangkok address). It wa...
M/S. Hans Raj Bhartiys and Co. and Others Vs. Union of India and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi83; 41(1990)DLT284
ORDERP. N. Nag, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos.2105, 2078 and 2662 of 1989 as in all these three petitions identical questions arise for consideration.2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Orders Nos. F.5(1)/89-P&S; (P&C;)/120066 dated July 17, 1989 (Annexure 'D' to the writ petition No. CW 2105/89) and F. 5(1)1 82-F & S (P & C dated May 22,1989, (Annexure 'G' to CW 2105/89) passed by the Commissioner, Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner').3. The petitioners hold license as dealers for free sale sugar and also for controlled sugar. The relevant portions of the impugned orders issued in pursuance of Condition 8 of the free sale sugar license granted in Form'E' appended to the Delhi Sugars Licensing Order, 1963 are extracted below:Order dated July 12, 1989 'No wholesaler shall sell free sale sugar to another wholesaler. Provided that the above restriction shall not...
Harish Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT42
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) On 1.6.1984, Shyam Lal was the duty constable at General Hospital, Shahdara. He set the ball of investigation rolling, by informing the police station Seema Puri at 4.50 P.M. about the admission of one Kiran aged about i9 years by her husband Harish, resident of Block No. K-4, Sunder Nagri, in a burnt condition. A.S.I. Swaran Singh (Public Witness -8) on receipt of this information made an entry in the D.D. Register and gave its copy to the A.S.I. Budh Ram (Public Witness -3) for necessary action. He immediately came to the spot from where he came to know that the injured had been taken to J.P.N. Hospital. On reaching the hospital, he found Smt. Kiran in the burn ward of the hospital The doctor on duty reported that she is in a fit condition to make the statement. The A.S.I, then recorded the statement of Smt. Kiran in Hindi translation of which is Ex. PW-3/B. It reads as under : -'I reside at the aforesaid address. I was married to Harish Kumar r/o K-4, Sunder Nagr...
Goodyear India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT194; 1990(49)ELT39(Del)
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) By the present writ petition, petitioners seek to, interalia, challenge the Directive No. 15/16/63-CXI of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, respondent no. 2 herein, whereby it has been clarified that, where an exemption of set off is given under the notification, the special duty of excise is to be calculated first, without applying the exemption notification, which is to be applied thereafter. (2) To appreciate the respective contentions of learned counsel for parties, it will be useful, to refer to, in briefs, the facts of the case. (3) Petitioner No. 1 manufactures tyres, tubes, flaps and rubber products, which are classifiable under Tariff Items 16, 16A and 68 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the manufacture of finished products, petitioner Company uses certain raw materials, which are classified and, on which duty is paid under Tariff Item 68 of the 1st Schedule to the Act. Petitioner, also us...
Textile Bearings (Kci) (Pvt.) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT280TriDel
1. This application has been preferred by the applicants/appellant praying that Order No. 309/89-WRB dated 30-8-1989 passed by the West Regional Bench in E/Stay/424/89, SB (WR) be revised/reviewed or any other order that may be deemed fit be passed.2. The applicants had filed this appeal with West Regional Bench at Bombay and had also preferred the above-mentioned Stay Petition. The Stay Petition was decided by West Regional Bench on 30-8-1989 and the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in cash and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount. The applicant has not complied with the said order. Meantime, as the subject-matter was within the jurisdiction of the Special Bench, the record of the appeal has been transferred to the Special Bench at New Delhi. Thereafter, the applicant submitted this application before the WRB, but as the appeal was transferred to the Special Bench, he was directed to prefer this application before the Special Bench. That is how the appl...
Collector of Customs Vs. Ramesh Chand
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT494TriDel
1. Brief facts of the case are that certain electronic goods such as tape-recorder heads, T.V. Condensers and other goods were recovered from the respondent's business premises. On adjudication, the original authority has absolutely confiscated the goods and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-.1.1 In appeal, filed before him, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) has observed as follows : "After due consideration, I hold that the appellant undertakes repairs work only. While drawing the panchnama, the condition of the goods especially the old and defective one has not been incorporated. No inspection by original authority has been conducted to determine as to how much was stock in trade and not covered by documentary evidence produced by the appellant. No investigations have been done from the author of the Bills produced by the appellant and results thereof considered while passing the order. The order-in-original is set aside for de novo proceeding." 2. In the appeal before the Tribun...
Melody Magnetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC183
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No.5680/87-BCH dated 18-12-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported a consignment of Gamma Ferric Oxide for manufacture of Audio Magnetic Tapes and presented a Bill of Entry (No. 169/156) for its clearance. The goods were assessed by the customs authorities, extending the benefit of exemption under Customs Notification No.229/83 dated 18-8-1983 on execution of a bond by the appellants binding themselves to submit a certificate of consumption of the goods for the designated purpose within the period stipulated in the bond. However, the appellants failed to comply with this requirement. At their request, the Assistant Collector extended the time limit for submission of the consumption certificate upto 28-2-1986 by his letter dated 17-9-1985. The appellants failed to utilise the goods even by the extended date and, consequently, they approached the Ass...
Amrit Lal Suri Vs. C.P. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi224; ILR1991Delhi150
ORDERC. L. CHAUDHRY, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 4-8-1987 by which the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance was decreed. The facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of House No. B-36, Swami Nagar, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs. 61,297.57 or in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 1, 11,297.57 against the appellant/ defendant.2. The allegations made in the plaint are that the appellant was at one time member of Delhi Dayalbagh Cooperative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter called the society). The Society owned land in Swami Nagar Colony in Chirag Delhi, which land was sold by the Society to different persons for the purpose of construction of houses. The colony was meant for providing residential accommodation to Satsangis i.e. the persons who professed the Radha Swami faith....
M/S. T.M. Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Delhi Development Autho ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi247; ILR1990Delhi431; 1990RLR345
ORDERB. N. Kirpal, J.1. Rule D.B.2. The challenge in this writ petition is essentially to the order dated 23rd February, 1990 passed under Section 31A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. By this order, part of the premises of the petitioners situated at Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area has been sealed.3. The contention of the petitioner against the aforesaid order is that the principles of natural justice have been violated as no reasonable opportunity has been granted to the petitioner prior to the passing of the said order. It is also contended that Section 31A is unconstitutional inasmuch as it confers arbitrary powers on the respondents.4. Coming to the question of the constitutionality of the Section we find that the said provision gives the power to the respondents to seal unauthorised development. The said provision reads as follows:'Section 31A Power to seal unauthorised development. (1) It shall be lawful for the authority or the competent authority, as the case may ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »