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.
Defee Marek Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: 1990(28)LC459(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Cr. W. 755/89 and Cr. W. 756/89. The orders of detention in both the cases are dated November 2,1989. In Cr. W. 755/89 the petitioner is one Defect Mark and in Crl. W. 756/89 the petitioner is Osmola Kazimierz, both Polish Nationals. The impugned orders have been made in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view of preventing the petitioners from smuggling goods.2. Various grounds of challenge have been taken in the writ petitions. It is admitted that the petitioners were in custody when the orders of detention were made. The judicial remand of both the petitioners had been extended till 23rd November, 1989. One of the grounds on which the impugned orders are challenged is that there is no cogent material depicted in the grounds of detention from where the subjective satisfaction could be reached by the detaining authority that the detenus ...
Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC412Tri(Delhi)
1. These four appeals have common facts and arguments. We, therefore, heard them together and proceed to dispose of them by the common order.2. For easy reference the particulars of the 4 appeals are given below:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. Collr's adjn. Order No.C I F Model Value-----------------------------------------------------------------------------1 2 3 4-----------------------------------------------------------------------------C/621/87- S/10-2/86 SUB Rs. NASHUA 1231SB(WR) dt. 8-6- S/9-58/86 SUB 9754797- (8030)87 Dt. 26-11-86C/622/87- S/10-1/86 SVB 3105793/- KALLE9030SB(WR) dt. 8-6- S/9-59/86 SVBC/623/87- S/10-3/86 SUB 414067/- NASHUA 1290SB(WR) dt. 8-6- S/9-60/86 SUBC/624/87SB S/1Q-4/86 SUB 3065491/- NASHUA 5130(WRB)dt. 8-6-87 S/9-61/86SUB-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Qty. Fine in lieu of Penalty Status of Clearance confiscation------------------------------------------...
Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC438Tri(Delhi)
1. Present appeals are directed against the impugned Order so far as it relates to three Orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) in his file Nos. (1) 239-CE/APPL/IND/85; (2) 240-CE/APPL/IND/85; and (3) 241-CE/APPL/IND/85.2. Faclual structure of the case which is identical to all the present appeals is that the appellants manufacture oil from Soyabean Oils Seeds by Solvent Extraction Method. Show Cause Notices were issued by Superintendent, Central Excise, Sehore requiring the appellants to show cause as to why the amount mentioned therein be not recovered from them under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act read with Section 3(IV) of the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983. The appellants filed their reply mainly contending that the proposed recovery of cess was quite illegal, ultra-vires without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction. However, the Asstt. Collector while adjudicating the cases passed four different orders rejecting the contention of the appellant holding t...
P. Ranjitha Vs. University Grants Commission and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT444
R.N. Nag, J.(1) Rule, D.B. (2) The petitioner has challenged the impugned letter No. PGS/Appeal. No. 1810/89 dated September 11, 1989 written to her by respondent No. 3 whereby her admission to M.Sc. in Agricultural Economics for the session 1989-90 has been kept in abeyance pending decision by the competent authority with regard to her eligibility for admission to M.Sc. programme at the I.A.R.I. (Indian Agricultural Research Institute) and has also sought to restrain the respondents from preventing the petitioner from pursuing the course of M.Sc. in the Institute, i.e.. respondent No. 2 to which she has already been admitted. (3) The petitioner is a B. Com. Graduate with Economics as one of the subjects from Osmania University and has secured 81.08% marks. After having come to Delhi in pursuit of higher studies, she applied for M.Sc. in Agricultural Economics to respondent No. 2 being eligible for such a course according to the Prospectus (Information Bulletin) issued by the I.A.R.I. ...
Virender Kumar Babley Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)Crimes552; 41(1990)DLT650; 1990(19)DRJ68
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The appellant herein was convicted under Sections 30/34 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and was also sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment on this count. The orders of conviction and sentence are dated 11th of November 1986. The appellant has made a grievance against this order of conviction and sentence.(2) At trial on Bharat and Lalit, alleged to be two more accomplices of the appellant, were also charged under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code but have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, though the case against., them also rested on the same set of facts and evidence. It was held in respect, of these two persons that the prosecution has failed to establish their involvement beyond reasonable doubt. Pursuant to an order of this court dated 8th of December 1936 the sentence of the appellant suspended and be is on bail ever since the...
Raj Rani Vs. Roop Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT266; II(1990)DMC142; 1990(18)DRJ325
N.N. Goswami, J.(1) This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-10-1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved under Section 13(B)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.(2) The admitted facts are that the parties were married at Delhi on 19-2-1988. They lived together for few days and parted company on March 7, 1988. Since that date 'they have been living separately. Having realised that due to their temperament they could not live together they entered into an agreement to dissolve the marriage through Court. In the agreement it was provided that the same had been arrived at with the help and intervention of respectable and common well wishers. It was further provided that the parties will approach the Court and file a petition for divorce by mutual consent. It was also provided that a sum of Rs. 90,000.00 had been received by the appellant wife from the respondent in consideration of the a...
Anuj (Toffee) Garg Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)37TTJ(Del)208
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the assessed and the point raised is whether an income by way of winning from lottery run by Sikkim Govt. would be taxable.2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The assessed, a minor, had bought a ticket of a lottery run by Govt. of Sikkim. He was lucky enough to get the winning ticket. The prize amount was Rs. 63,500. The Govt. of Sikkim deducted income-tax of Rs. 5,438 and remitted the balance of Rs. 58,062 by means of a cheque drawn on State Bank of Sikkim at Gangtok. The assessed filed his income-tax return in which he showed the receipt of the prize money as income and claimed credit for the tax deducted at source. The ITO did not allow the tax deduction credit on the ground that the tax deducted was not credited to the Govt. of India account.3. The assessed appealed. The AAC agreed with the ITO that the tax deduction by the Sikkim Govt. could not be considered as eligible for tax credit. The assessed, thereupon, for the first time, claimed before the ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Electrols
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC270Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal arises from the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 31-3-1983 involving the issue of eligibility of the Respondents to avail of exemption under Notification 89/79 dated 1-3-1979 in respect of goods falling under T.1.68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.2. At the out set the learned advocate for the respondent raised the following two preliminary objections: (1) that the Collector has not formed and expressed an opinion that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was neither legal nor proper as required under Section 35B(2) of the CESA 1944. (2) The appeal, though Filed with the Assistant Registrar of West Regional Bench within the statutory time limit of 3 months, was received in the Special Bench after expiry of that time limit and as such the appeal was barred by limitation and during the material time of the appeal Section 35D(2) read with rule 6(1) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 did not permit filing an appeal relating to a Special...
The Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC335Tri(Delhi)
1. The learned counsel stated on 17-10-1989 that this is a case in which they were enjoying exemption from basic duty in respect of excess production during the period prescribed under Notification No. 109/87.A question has arisen whether in these circumstances they were liable to pay additional duty or were exempt from it. It was their submission that the relevant Notification No. 77/86 dated 10-2-1986 exempted sugar and other items which were for the time being fully exempt from duty of excise leviable under the Central Excise & Salt Act from the whole of the additional duty of excise.3. The learned Assistant Collector has interpreted this notification to mean that the exemption was available to those varieties of sugar which were assessable at nil rate of duty under the schedule itself.4. It was their contention that this interpretation was incorrect inasmuch as the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957 also has a schedule under which 17.01 Kandasarisugar and 17.21 palmyrah sug...
National Airport Authority Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC214Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute related to the eligibility of the 'Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)' for exemption under Notification 284/76.2. The appellants imported 46 boxes DME in April 1983. The Customs authorities classified the goods under Heading 85.18/27-1 and assessed to duty at Rs. 1,02,59,249-11. The duty was paid on 14th July 1983.Thereafter on 3rd Oct. 83 they filed a claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 54,29,411-71 claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 284/76. The claim was rejected by the Asst. Collector.On appeal the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Asstt.Collector. Hence the appeal before us.3. The main contention of the appellants is that the authorities below mis-read the notification i.e. they proceeded on an assumption that clause 1 of the notification is applicable, while the goods imported fall under clause 2 of the notification. He further submitted that clause 2 reads: "Apparatus for wireless reception incorporated in a single unit wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »