Delhi Court July 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 1 of about 91 results (0.018 seconds)Petrofils Cooperative Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT153TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay issued on 28-10-1988 by which he had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex Bombay, holding that the goods imported by the appellants herein are not eligible for the exemption of Auxiliary duty of customs in terms of Notification 112/87. The facts in brief are that, the appellants have a collaboration agreement with German Firm M/s Lurgi, GmBH, West Germany, for production of Nylon-6 Textile Grade chips and FOY & FOY Grade Nylon Filament Yarn by using high speed spinning technology. In pursuance of their collaboration contract, the appellant had imported a consignment described in the related invoice and Bill of Entry as supply of Technical knowhow, Basic Engineering & Drawings and other Data Sheets.The invoice indicated that this supply was as per the agreement with the appellants. According to the appellants these are Basic Engineering and Drawings ...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Kumar Dutia and ors. Vs. Export Trade Development Officer an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT317
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) A petition for eviction of the respondents No 2 from premises bearing No. 2-E/12 Jhandewalan Extension, Link Road New Delhi was filed by late Smt. Sunita Bala Dutta under Clauses (a), (c) and (i) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlady gave up the ground under Clauses (c) and (j) of the said-Section, but continued with her petition under Clause (a) for non-payment of rent, and it was alleged that respondent no. 2 had defaulted in paying the rent w.e.f. 1.8.1972 despite service of demand notice on respondent no. 2 on 11.1.1974. The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 17th December 1977 dismissed the petition on the ground that the notice sent by the landlady was not in compliance with the provisions of Section 196 of the Transfer of Property Act. An appeal was filed by the landlady against that order to the Rent Control Tribunal which was also dismissed on 6th July 1979. Before the petition was dismissed on 17th December 1977, an ap...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Narmada Valley Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC203Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is arising out of order dated 25-4-1989 passed by the learned Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Baroda. Facts stated in the appeal memo may be summarised as under :- 2. Appellant is a Public Limited Company controlled by the Government of Gujarat and it is engaged in manufacture inter alia of Ammonia/Fertilizer since 1981. The appellant had been enjoying benefits of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 187/61 and thereafter Notification No. 75/84 in respect of Raw Naphtha manufactured by and purchased from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and used by the Appellant in the manufacture of Ammonia/Fertilizer. For the purpose of availing of such benefit the appellant has obtained L-6 licence which is renewed from time to time, has obtained CT-2 certificates, maintained prescribed RG-16 registers and has followed all the procedures. There is no dispute that the appellant has meticulously followed the prescribed procedure under Chapter X, as required under the...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT650TriDel
1. In these two applications for condonation of delay, the appellants have sought for condoning the delay in filing the appeals.2. In COD application No. 151/90-C, the appellants have sought for condoning the delay of about four months in filing the appeal. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi passed the order-in-appeal on 27-10-1989. The appellants have received the same in their office on 7-11-1989. The appellants have contended that they should have filed the appeal against the said order on or before 6th February 90. The reason for delay in filing the appeal given by them is that the appellants were not given opportunity of personal hearing by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) even though the same was specifically requested by them in their Memo of appeal. They have further contended that they had not received notice of personal hearing. They have submitted that after they received the impugned order, they forwarded a letter by registered post on 9-11-1989 b...
Tag this Judgment!Bradma of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT533TriDel
1. Both the appeals pertain to the same appellant and hence they are being taken up together for disposal.2. In Appeal No. 2309/86-C, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the product 'Model Plastic Cards' manufactured by the appellants, falling under Tariff item 15A(2) of CET are entitled for the benefit of exemption under notification No. 68/71 dated 29-5-1971 as amended.3. In Appeal No. 2625/86-C, the question to be decided is as to whether the appellants are entitled for refund of duty paid by them under protest for the period from 1-1-1983 to 30-6-1983, in case of their being entitled for eligibility of exemption under Notification No.182/82 dated 11-5-1982.4. The brief facts of the case in Appeal No. 2309/86-C are that the appellants are manufacturers of 'Model Plastic Blank Cards' falling under Tariff Item No. 15A(2) and they had sought for exemption under Notification No. 68/71 dated 29-5-1971 as amended. The Assistant Collector had, in the order-in-origi...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Engineering Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC271Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, Order No. S/26-797/85-J dated 01-07-1988. The appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 11-08-1989 and in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 9289-90 and 11834 of 1989 dated 01-08-1989, whereby the Supreme Court has ordered thus "if the petitioners claim any exemption under the subsequent notification, the Collector will dispose of the same in accordance with law. If any appeal is preferred before the Tribunal against the order dated 01-07-1988 passed by the Collector within two weeks from today, the respondent undertakes not to raise any objection as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of limitation". In view of the above direction of the Supreme Court, the appeal having been filed on 11-08-1989 is deemed to Be maintainable.2. The brief facts are : In the Year 1985, the dispute of classification of 'Connecting Rod Bushes and Can Shaft Bushes' for Ford Tra...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2527; 42(1990)DLT531; 1990(19)DRJ342
Malik, J. (1) On the night intervening 30th and 31st July 1983 one Kewal Kishan was done to death by the appellant at about 1-30 A.M.'while the deceased was sleeping on a col spread outside his house No. 2/21, Vijay Nagar, Delhi. At the same time the appellant had also caused injuries to his cousin sister Kumari Seema, daughter of Jagjit Singh. This, was done pursuant to an attempt to kill her. The weapon of offence , used is sword Ex. P-14, recovered pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the appellant before Shri Harnath Singh,Sub-lnspector,(P.W. 19).The F.I.R. was lodged by Ranjit Kumar, brother of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the appellant attacking. Kumari Seema with a sharp edged weapon and then running away from the scene. Simultaneously, be .also found his brother Kewal Kishan having been murdered. Jagjit Singh, father of Kumari Seema. and Ranjit Kumar, brother Of the deceased, tried to apprehend the appellant but did not succeed. Ranjit Kumar also informed the po...
Tag this Judgment!Edward John and ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991CriLJ310; 42(1990)DLT299; II(1990)DMC516; 1990(19)DRJ185
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Bungalow No. 17-B, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi has three servant quarters. In one of them lived Alfred John, Edward John and Augilina Gladia. The first two are real brothers. The third Is their mother. On October 12. 1983 there was an addition to the family. Smt. Rajni @ Alvia was married on that day to Alfred John. As per the prosecution, the marriage soon ran into rough whether and that though each day remained laden with heavy clouds of discontent and disharmony, the reason being dissatisfaction over dowry, on December 28, 1983 the day dawned with ill-portent. At about 8.30 a.m.Rajni suffered second to third degree burns all over her body except in the sacral area and the left groin. She was rushed to Safdarjung hospital by Edward John where, at about 10.30 p.m., she breathed her last. Her mortal remains were subjected to post mortem on December 30, 1983. It was opined (See Ex. Public Witness -20/A) that the burn were ante mortem caused by fire and the death was...
Tag this Judgment!Mela Ram Gugnani Vs. Goenka Dal Mills
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT340
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 22nd August 1988 and of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 25th May 1978 whereby the application for execution filed by the appellant under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed and the objections filed by the respondent-tenant were allowed. (2) The brief facts of the case are as follows : The appellant rented his house bearing no. 19/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi to the respondent a partnership firm for the resident of one of the partners Shri Nirmal Kumar for a limited period of two years on 1.9.1975. The respondent handed over the possession of the said premises to the appellant on 31.8.1977 before the expiry of two years period. The partner of the respondent issued a surrender slip Ext. OW1/A dated 31.8.1977. appellant-landlord however gave the premises again on rent for a limited period to the same firm for a period of two years b...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Saha Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT351
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) In exercise of the powers conferred u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange, and Prevention of Smuggling 'Activities Act, 1974, (in short, Cofeposa Act) the Joint Secretary , the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, vide orders dated 4.10.89, directed the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was detained on 7.10.89. The order of declaration u/s 9(1) of the Act was made by the Addl. Secretary to the Government of India on 19.10.89. The said order was confirmed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers u/s 8(f) read with Section 9(2) of the aforesaid Act, for a period of 2 years from the date of detention of the petitioner i.e. from 7.10.89. (2) By way this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his detention dated 4.10.89 and that of continued detention dated 19.10.89 on various grounds but at the time of hearing argum...
Tag this Judgment!