Delhi Court April 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.
Filmistan Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD166(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the CIT (Appeals), II, Delhi stating that he was not justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to any interest Under Section 244(1A) read with Section 214(2).2. The facts in brief are that the ITO had completed the assessment Under Section 143(3) of the IT Act on 27-12-1983 on a total income of Rs. 2,23,500. On Appeal, this income was converted into a loss of Rs. 35,443 resulting in a refund of advance tax paid of Rs. 62,873. The order Under Section 250 was passed on 30-10-1984. While giving effect to the appellate order, the ITO allowed interest only Under Section 214 amounting to Rs. 20,119. The claim of the assessee to allow interest Under Section 244(1 A) was, however, rejected by him. The assessee then moved an application before the ITO Under Section 154 for rectification of the order of the ITO by allowing interest Under Section 244(1 A) but it was also rejected. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ...
S. Rajdeo Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi1; ILR1990Delhi220
ORDERP. N. Nag, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of ,mandamus directing the respondents to deliver the possession of Flat No. G-2, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, presently in occupation of respondent No. 6, to them and also for quashing the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer, Shri B. Chakravarty, respondent No. 5, and the appeal pending before Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi, respondent No. 7.2. The facts, in brief, are that the Flat No- G-2 (now Flat No. G-73), Connaught Circus, New Delhi consisting of four rooms, one kitchen, one bath-room, verandah and court-yard on the first floor, which are stated to belong to the petitioners, was requisitioned 'by the Collector in 1948 when it was in possession of Sangeet Bharati Authority. It was further requisitioned by the Government under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act) vide order of the Deputy Commis...
international Traders Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC16Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. International Traders, 51-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-7, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. In Column No. 3, date of communication of the order has been mentioned as 30th November, 1989. The appeal was received in the Registry on 1st March, 1990. Thus there is a delay of one day.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the applicant. He has pleaded that the appeal could not be filed on the last date of the hearing as the rough draft of the appeal was prepared, but there was some snag in the computer and as such, the appeal could not be filed on that day. The appeal was prepared a little late on the same day and thereafter the applicant rushed to the Tribunal for the filing of the same, but the Registry had closed down by that time. He has pleaded that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal.3. Miss Renuka Mann, the learned SDR stated tha...
Fracht Forwarders Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC376Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi dated 9-11-1989 by M/s. Indo World Trading Corpn. who were the exporters and M/s. Fracht Forwarders, who were the clearing agents.2. The learned counsels stated that M/s. Indo World Trading Corpn.filed a shipping bill through their clearing and forwarding agents M/s.Fracht Forwarders for export of costos roots. They were asked to file a no objection certificate from the Drug Controller as well as the Wildlife department for export of roots, as only the plants cultivated in private lands could be exported as per Import and Export Policy 1988-91.3. The exporters produced no objection certificate from the Assistant Drug Controller. They have also produced subsequently the Legal Procurement Certificate (LPC) and the convention on the International Trade in endangered species of flora and fauna issued in the name of Himalayan Traders.4. It was their submission that the appellants are th...
Mrs. Bharat Kumari Sehgal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT585TriDel
1. When the appeal came up for hearing it was noticed that impugned order has been signed by the Adjudicating Officer as Dy. Collector. So question arose as to which will be the appropriate forum to hear and decide the appeal. So we did not go into the merits of the appeal, and we directed both sides to address the arguments on this point only.2. It is an admitted position that impugned order has been signed by the officer and, therein the words 'Deputy Collector' have been specifically inserted. So on the basis of it, it appears that the Adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order in his capacity as Deputy Collector. The Consultant, Shri N. Singh referred us to several documents to show that the officer concerned, namely Shri N.K.P. Sinha, was posted as Additional Collector at the relevant time and he could have only exercised powers of the Additional Collector. So presuming that he has signed as Dy. Collector then also it should be treated to have been signed by him in his ...
G. Lakshmikantan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1067
ORDER1. The challenge in this petition is to the order of detention passed in exercise of powers under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing Shri G. Kumar, from smuggling goods. The petition has been filed by the brother of Sh. Kumar. Briefly the facts, emerging from the grounds of detention, are these :- On 26th March 1989 Sh. Kumar holder of Malasian passport arrived as a Passenger at Madras international Airport from Kaulalampur by Malasian Air lines Flight No. MH-032. Sh. Kumar was questioned by the Customs Intelligence Officer as to whether he had kept concealed any gold or any other contraband in his baggage. He replied in the negative. The attache case of Kumar was found to be unusually heavy even after emptying its contents the bottom cover of the said attache case was ripped open by the Customs Officer and it was found that a false bottom cavity had been made in the bottom portion of the said ...
Punjab Micro Nutrients Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC134Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 27-4-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi by which he had upheld the order dated 29-7-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patiala. The facts in brief are that the appellants during the period 1-3- 1986 to 9-8-1986 obtained a quantity of 369.225 M.T. of sulphuric acid and used it in the manufacture of zinc sulphate by availing exemption under Notification 81/75 dated 22- 3-1975. They also obtained L-6 licence and observed formalities of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is a requirement of the notification.The Assistant Collector, however, issued a Show Cause Notice on 28-8-1986 calling upon them to show cause why Central Excise duty of Rs. 74,774.14 be not recovered from them under Section 11-A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 on the sulphuric acid brought by them for manufacture of zinc sulphate without payment of duty on the ground that with the coming into ef...
Collector of Customs Vs. Nippon Bearing (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC242
1. The dispute in these 370 appeals relate to the maintainability of the appeals under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The respondents imported ball bearings from Romania and Hungary. The Collector in his order No. S/10-181/86 dated 20th March 1987 in the case of bearings imported from Romania, by M/s. Shaheel Enterprises, Bombay, S/10-52/87J dated 20th March 1987, S/10-96/85 dated 20th March 1987, in the case of bearings imported from M/s. Impex Metal by M/s.Lyallpur Machinery imported from Hungary accepted the invoice price based on suppliers prevailing price-list. Following these orders, the Collector accepted the invoice price in the case of imports in 370 cases against which the present appeals are filed. Dy. Collector's above note makes very clear about the assessment to be followed for the present and future consignments. By the above two files i.e.S/10-181/86 (Romania) (A copy of Order-in-OriginalS/10-53/87 (Hungary) placed) Collector has accepted price list in the ca...
Jatinder Kumar and Others Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1482
ORDER1. Deceased Smt. Neelam was married to Petitioner No. 1 - Jatinder Kumar on 9th December 1985. Petitioner No. 2 Dina Nath and petitioner No. 3 - Mala Devi are parents to Jatinder Kumar. Petitioner No. 4 Kumari Veena and Petitioner No. 5 - Kumari Poonam are sisters of Jatinder. Neelam, according to the case of the prosecution, died of burn injuries on the night intervening 6th and 7th July 1986. By the impugned order dated 29th August 1989 the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that all the petitioners are liable to be charged under S. 498A IPC and under Ss. 302/34 IPC. the Additional Sessions Judge has further directed that in the alternative petitioners be also charged under Ss. 306/498 IPC. 2. Petitioners 1 to 3 have no grievance in respect of that part of the order which directs framing of charge against them under Ss. 306 and 498A, IPC. The grievance of the said petitioners, however, is that there is no material justifying the part of the impugned order which direc...
Farhat HussaIn Vs. Union Territoly of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT237; 1990(19)DRJ163
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) By orders made on 3rd June, 1989, Sh. R.L. Chugh, Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi, dismissed the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that the case had to be tried under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') because the alleged recovery was of April, 1989 when the said Act was enforced. Similar observations were also made while rejecting the second application on 6th June, 1989. By this petition tiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of the aforesaid orders dated 3rd June 1989 and 6th June, 1989 and in particular that part of the order whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the case had to be tried under the Act. In substance the grievance made in this petition is, that on the basis of the allegations, made by the prosecution, the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »