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.
Ram Khilawan Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2175
1. Appellant Ram Khilawan has filed this appeal challenging his conviction under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts, in brief, are that S.I. L. C. Yadav (PW 6), when posted in police Station Naraina, accompanied by S.I. Rai Singh and Constable Daryao Singh was slated to be patrolling in 'H' Block of Naraina Vihar and at about 6.10 p.m. he received a secret information that a person having opium with him would be coming from, the side of Railway lines. He immediately requested 4 or 5 passers-by to join the raiding party and out of them PW 5 Jai Parkash and PW 8 Mahesh Chand agreed to join the raiding party and thereafter necessary Naqabandi was held in 'G' Block of Naraina Vihar and at about 6.30 p.m. the appellant was seen coming from the side of Railway l...
A.G. Khan Vs. Police Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: 1990RLR385
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This petition has been filed u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. seeking quashment of the proceedings pending before Sh. B. Lal, Special Executive Magistrate, u/S. 107 read with S. 150, Cr. P.C. (2) I have gone through the record of the Special Executive Magistrate and find that it depicts a sorry state of affairs. A complaint dated 27.3.89, was made by Mohan Lal in which he joined five persons as respondents, out of whom two arc the petitioners before me and it was alleged in that complaint that this complaint is being given in continuation of complaint dated 19.1.89, but the record shows that there is no such complaint attached with this file. In para 2 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that at about 11 P.M. two bulls were fighting in the lane and they fell down on the water tap/pipe line of the respondent Mrs. Kishwar Jahan Begum and the water pipes were damaged and that respondents, Shri A.G. Khan and Mrs. Kishwar Jahan Begum (now petitioners) alleged that it was the compla...
T.M. Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT139
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Rule D. B. The challenge in this writ petition is essentially to the order dated 23rd Feb., 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.(2) 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.(3) Coming the question of the constitutionality of the Section we find that the said provision gives the power to the respondent to seal unauthorised delvelopment. 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 be, at...
Subhash Ch. Kakkar Vs. D.S.i.D.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: 1990RLR342
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is an appeal against an order passed by the single Judge dismissing the application for injunction filed by appellant. (2) It appears that some arbitration proceedings between the parties bad been initiated. The appellant then filed O.M.P. No. 8/90, being an application u/S. 33 of the Arbitration Act. The prayers in the application, inter alia, were that the Court should bold that there was no legal, valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties. An application for staying of the arbitration proceedings was also filed, which application has been dismissed by impugned order. It is against that order that the present appeal has been filed. (3) At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant was required to satisfy us with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. Learned counsel submits that the Court trying the application is a Civil Court and relying upon O.N.G.C. vs . Western Co. of North American : [1987]1SCR1024 , it is contended that the...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kamarhatty Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC116Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Department alongwith the captioned application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is directed against the order-in-Appeal No. 569/Cal/84 dated 3-5-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.2. Factual structure of the case is that the respondent M/s. Kamarhatty Co. Ltd., Kamarhatty cleared Packsheet and stitching twine and used the same for the purpose of packing of jute consignments for export during the period from 1-2-1979 to 11-1-1980, which according to the department was done without discharging duty liability on such packsheets and stitching twine. Consequently demand was raised and confirmed by the Assistant Collector vide his Order-in-Original dated 22-12-1983. On appeal by the respondent the Collector (Appeals) after setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector allowed the appeal.Hence the present appeal by the Department.3. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, the department also moved the captioned app...
Abril Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT371TriDel
2. The appellant, a Private Limited Company, is duly licensed under Central Excise & Drugs Acts for manufacture and sale of P.P. Medicines falling under T.I. No. 14E of erstwhile First Schedule of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The appellant has also obtained loan licence to market certain medicines after getting them manufactured from two other units named M/s. Impha Lab (hereinafter called 'Impha') and M/s. Dicks Lab (hereinafter called 'Dicks') which are Private Limited Companies duly licensed for the manufacture of and to market certain medicines. M/s. M.K. Enterprises (hereinafter called M.K.) a registered partnership firm is also so licensed. 'Dicks' and 'M.K.' did not own any factory to manufacture medicines. The Appellant did not have manufacturing facilities to manufacture certain drugs. So, it applied and obtained permission to market these medicines after getting them manufactured by 'Impha'. As 'Dicks' and 'M.K.' did not have man...
Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC174
1. This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No.AMP-629/BIII-323/88 dated 6-1-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The issue for determination in the present appeal is whether the product called "Tortoise Mosquito Coils" manufactured by the appellants was eligible for exemption from excise duty in terms of Notification No.55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975, as amended from time to time, as an "insecticide".3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. On the basis of the chemical examiner's test report that the product was not a pesticide or insecticide, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause notice dated 11-12-1979 to the appellants demanding duty amounting to Rs. 11,49,236.57 on account of the clearances of the product effected during the period from 1-3-1978 to 26-9-1979. In due course, the Assistant Collector who adjudicated the case held that as the mosquito coils contained pyrethrin, an insecticide, it was eligible for duty ...
Sagar Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC431Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants a partnership firm manufacture coloured pencils. The raw materials required for manufacture of coloured pencils i.e. wooden slate, synthetic colours etc., packing material (all duty paid) were supplied by M/s. Lions Pencils Pvt. Ltd., Bombay free of charge.Originally, a contract was entered into vide letter dated LPL/10/1825/75 dated 5th October, 1975, under which the appellants were to be paid Rs. 3.50 for gross as labour charges. The contract is subject to renewal. After the manufacture, the colour pencils were sent back to M/s. Lions Pencils (P) Ltd., Bombay. While so a Show Cause Notice dated 26th Aug., 1980 was issued on 5th September, 1980 proposing to recover duty on the pencils manufactured by them for the period 18th June, 1977 to 28th Feb., 1978; 1st March 1978 to 28th Feb., 1979; 1st March 1979 to 31st March 1980; 1st April 1980 to 15th April 1980 on various grounds inter alia that they are manufacturing pencils on behalf of M/s. Lions Pencils (P) Ltd. On ...
M/S. P.N. B. Finance Ltd. Vs. Shital Prasad JaIn and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi13; II(1990)BC228; [1990]69CompCas196(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT452; [1990]185ITR298(Delhi)
ORDER1. These three IAs have been moved on identical grounds on behalf of the defendants 2, 3 and 5. thereforee, this order will dispose of all these IAs.2. It is alleged in these IAs that the present suit is directed against defendant No.1 who is alleged to have taken some loan from the plaintiff. The substance of the allegations in the plaint are that defendant No.1 diverted the loan amounts to defendants 2, 3 and 5 and acquired assets in their names. In other words the. plaintiff so its is alleged has get up the case of benami against the defendants it is then alleged that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants herein and also without admitting in any manner, any of the allegations made in the plaint, the defendants submit that in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act), the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain any suit on the basis of the plea of benami. thereforee the suit of the plaintiff should be dismissed...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. I.P. Choudhary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR451(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties. The Tribunal, in its order, has clearly stated that it had preferred to follow the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Batta Kalyani v. CIT : [1985]154ITR59(AP) with regard to the interpretation of section 64(1)(ii) read with the proviso thereto in preference to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D Rajagopal : [1985]154ITR375(KAR) . The Tribunal has held that the respondent's wife was technically qualified but did not hold a diploma or a degree while the Andhra Pradesh High Court was of the opinion that a diploma or degree was not necessary. The view of the Karnataka High Court is to the contrary. In our opinion, a question of law does arise and, thereforee, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 64(1)(ii) read w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »