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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Escorts Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT223TriDel
1. The Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, had issued a review Show Cause Notice under the erstwhile Sub-section (3) of Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962. After the coming into existence of the Tribunal in terms of provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, the said review Show Cause Notice is to be treated as an appeal.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Respondents - M/s.Escorts Limited had-imported 3-Axis dimension checking machine, namely "Validator-10" with special and standard accessories, vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 837 dated 05-04-1978 and had claimed the reassessment of the goods as special and standard accessories at the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated 01-03-1978 on the ground that the goods imported were "universal measuring instruments to check gauges, tools, jigs and components thereof including internal and external threads" as per SI. No. 9 of ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Pistons Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC510Tri(Delhi)
1. All these appeals directed against various orders passed by the Collectors of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras and Calcutta against the various appellant Collectors and appellant parties involve an identical issue. The issue is relating to levy of Special Excise Duty (SED) levied in the Finance Bill, 1988 vide its Clause 82 which laid down that there shall be levied and collected a Special Duty of Excise of 5% of the Basic Excise Duty chargeable under Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The point to be decided is whether Special Excise Duty (SED) imposed under Clause 82(1) of the Finance Bill, 1988 could be levied on the stock of goods manufactured and lying in stock as on 28-2-1988/1-3-1988, but cleared on or after that date. The Department's view is that though the taxable event is the manufacture or production of excisable goods, the duty can be levied and collected at a later date for administrative convenience in terms of Rule 9-A of Central Excise Rules. The Collector (Appe...
Deepak Mahajan Vs. Director of Enforcement and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas514(Delhi); 1991(31)ECC104; ILR1991Delhi1
ORDER179. In view of the majority decision, we uphold the conclusion in Union of India v. O. P. Gupta (Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 116 and 104 of 1984, decided on 19th July, 1985) that section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not confer implied power of remand on a Magistrate. 180. However, the view expressed in that case regarding the power available to a Magistrate under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commit to custody a person produced before him by a Customs Officer under section 104 of the Customs Act is incorrect and is thus overruled. 181. The petition is allowed and the rule made absolute. ...
Sunil Dev and Others Vs. Delhi and District Cricket Association and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas174(Delhi)
Mrs. Santosh Duggal, J. 1. The plaintiffs in this suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction are members of the executive committee and some of them are office-bearers of the Delhi and District Cricket Association ('the DDCA' for short), inasmuch as plaintiff No. 1, Mr. Sunil Dev, is the sport secretary and plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4, members of the executive committee, were as plaintiffs Nos. 5 and 6 are its ordinary members. The persons arrayed as defendants besides DDCA are also office-bearers and members of this body, which is stated to be a company incorporated under section 25 of the Indian Companies Act (for short 'the Act'). 2. This suit has been brought with a challenge to the validity of the notice issued on December 8, 1989, by the president of the DDCA (defendant No. 2) for holding the annual general meeting of December 29, 1989. The challenge is based primarily on three contentions, namely, that immediately after the elections for the last year, which concluded o...
Churiaram Aggarwal and Another Vs. Aggarwal Sweet Corner and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2460; 42(1990)DLT633; 1990(19)DRJ146; 1990RLR300
ORDER1. This petition has been brought under Section 401 read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure seeking setting aside of the order dated January 21, 1989 passed by Shri M. P. Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate directing issuance of general search warrants under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is pleaded by the petitioner that on the basis of the said search warrants the shop of the petitioner was sought to be searched. 2. Facts leading to the filing of the present petition in brief, are that respondent M/s. Aggarwal Sweet Corner, a duly registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, filed the complaint through one of its partners, namely, Vinod Kumar Aggarwal under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 pleading that the complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing sweets and 'nankeens' for the last about four years and complainant is the proprietor of the Trade Mark 'Aggarwal' in respect of aforesaid goods and this...
Abdul Hameed Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC92; 1991ACJ920; 1992(1)Crimes83; 41(1990)DLT306; 1990(18)DRJ327
P.K. Babri, J. (1) This Criminal Revision has been admitted, only on the point of sentence. I have heard arguments for disposing of this petition finally on this point. (2) Vide Judgment dated January 25, 1986, Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and vide order dated January 27, 1986 he has sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 338 I.PC. and two months rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 Indian Penal Code with the direction that all sentences shall run concurrently. (3) In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner fur the said offence reduced the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A, I, while maintaining the sentences under the other Sections. There was no need to impose any s...
Rati Ram and 7 ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ137
P.K. Kartha, C.J. (1) In this batch of applications, the facts are more or less similar and the question of law involved is identical. It is, thereforee, proposed to deal with them in a common judgment.(2) At the outlet, it may be stated that the services of large number of employees who have worked in the Railways for different periods, have been terminated on the ground that they had produced bogus Casual Labour Cards at the time of their entry into service. Their initial engagement was subject to verification of their antecedents, etc. Later on, the Vigilance Branch of the Railways, after holding their investigations, arrived at the conclusion that some of them had produced fake or fictitious Casual Labour Cards containing bogus entries of walk on the Railways prior to their endangerment Based on such reports of Investigation by the Vigilance Branch, the Railways have terminated the services of the persons concerned. In some cases, they have served show cause notices to the employee...
Joga Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT529; 1990(19)DRJ28
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quotient of the detention order dated October 27, 1989, made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods or transporting or concealing or keeping with him smuggled goods and declaration dated December 22, 1989. issued under Section 9(1) of the Cofeposa Act.(2) The facts, in brief, are that during the intervening night of March 11/12, 1989, the petitioner bad arrived at Igi Airport from Singapore and after collecting his checked in baggages which comprised of one black suitcase and one cardboard carton, be made declaration of the goods valued at Rs, 4,000.00 and paid Customs duly amounting to Rs. 5.337/50P and as he was proceeding for going out oi the Arrival Ha...
Ashqueen Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT275
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quotient of the detention order dated November 4, 1989 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 and declaration issued under Section 9(1) of the Act dated June 8, 1989. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contented that petitioner had made a representation to the Advisory Board and till date the said representation has not been considered by the Central Government and thus the continued detention of the petitioner has become bad. He has argued that no communication has been received by the detenu regarding a decision made by the Central Government on the said representation of the detenu. (3) In the counter affidavit filed by Shri A.S. Dagar, Deputy Secretary (Home) Delhi Administration it has been mentioned that the said representation given to th...
Deepak Mahajan Vs. the Director of Enforcement and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1124
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The petitioner herein, Deepak Mahajan, was arrested by Officers of the Enforcement Directorate for an offence punishable under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on 13th March, 1989. As per the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter called the FERA), he was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, the next day. An application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) was moved by the Enforcement Officer seeking petitioner's remand to judicial custody for 14 days mainly on the ground that it was necessary to complete the investigation. On that very day, the petitioner's application to be admitted to bail was also heard.(2) The learned Magistrate dismissed the bail application. The application on behalf of the Enforcement Officer was, however, allowed and the petitioner remanded to judicial custody for 14 days. Subsequently the remand of the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »