Delhi Court July 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.
Associated Millers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT633TriDel
1. Both of the appeals arising out of the order of the Collector(Appeals) are taken up for decision.2. The appellants have filed a Miscellaneous Application in Appeal No.C/2433/86-B2 for admission of additional evidence, consisting of purchase order, order of confirmation, invoice and packing list. These documents forming part of the proceedings before the lower authority are not additional evidences. But, however, the appellants have produced a catalogue issued by the appellant based on the original suppliers' catalogue. This not being the catalogue produced before the lower authorities is not admitted, but the catalogue in original supplied by suppliers alone is taken for consideration.In respect of the second contention, Shri M.C. Kothandaraman, Ld.Consultant stated that he is not pressing for this concession and would be limiting the appeal only to the disputed classification. The Collector(Appeals) in his Order No. C3/188 & 234/1986 dated 23-04-1986 has disposed of two orders...
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC217Tri(Delhi)
1. Appeal No. E/67/89-C has been filed by the appellant Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd., Naini, Allahabad and Appeal No.E/188/89-C is by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. Both these appeals are against the same order dated 26-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The facts in brief are that M/s. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (B.A.B.) are engaged in the manufacture of a product called 'Dant Manjan Lal'. Prior to 1-3-1975, the Central Excise department was of the view that the product Dant Manjan Lal was not chargeable to duty because of the express language of Tariff Item 14-E of Central Excise Tariff which was for patent or proprietary medicines other than those medicines which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani Sidha or Homeopathic. From 1-3-1975, residuary Item No. 68 "all other goods not elsewhere specified" was inserted in the Central Excise Tariff. Medicines other than those classified under Item 14-E, i.e. Ayurvedic medicines etc. w...
B.K. Chakravarty Vs. Bijaya Gurung
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT220; 1990(19)DRJ139
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been moved by B.K. Chakravarty. Air Customs Officer, seeking quashment of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated March 31, 1990, by which she had directed release of the respondent on bail on finishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (five lakhs only) with two sureties in the like amount with the direction that one of the sureties would be local.and that the petitioner shall not leave jurisdiction of the court without permission and he shall surrender his passport, if not already done. (2) The respondent had moved a petition under Section 482 read with Sections 401 & 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking modification of the said order granting bail playing that the bail amount as well as the number of sureties be reduced. Vide order dated May 22, 1990, this Court had passed he following order : 'Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a ba...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Bhagwan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT226; 1990(19)DRJ138; 1991RLR106
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India what is contended for by the petitioner will create an odd situation. The petitioner submits that the appeal, which has been filed by the respondents against the order of the Rent Controller deferring to make an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, is not maintainable having been filed against a dead person. The odd situation, that will arise, is that the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal is not maintainable and yet the order deferring the determination of the amount payable by the tenant under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act would not have been passed. There is a statutory requirement for passing of the order under Section 15(1) after hearing the parties (2) Counsel for the petitioner, who appears for the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, does not dispute, after perusing the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, that the power to...
Rame Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC509
M.K. Chawla, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 22-3-79 holding the accused/petitioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 279/304-A, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. The facts are not in dispute. On 27th November, 1974, at about 2.30 P.M., the complainant Om Parkash Trikha along with his sister Shakuntala alias Maya Devi was going on his motorcycle on G.T. Karnal Road. He took petrol from Azadpur Petrol Pump and after seating his sister Shakuntala on the pillion seat, proceeded towards Panipat. At about that time, a truck bearing registration No. DHG 5540 driven rashly by the accused came from behind and hit his motorcycle, as a result of which both Om Parkash and his sister fell down. Smt. Shakuntala sustained injuries on her head, while he received multiple injuries on his person. The truck stopped at some distance but the driver, ...
Saharia Krishivan Pratisthan Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC326
1. The appellants filed one revision application against each set of two orders-in-review. In accordance with the prevailing practice in this Tribunal, they have filed 2 supplementary appeals as there were in all four orders-in-review. The main revision application was filed in time. After hearing both the parties and following the earlier views taken by the Tribunal in similar situation, we have condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeals and have allowed the Condonation of Delay applications.2. By Order-in-Original No. DIV/JOR/3/PL/81 dated 16-1-1981, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jorhat approved the appellants' price lists No. 6/80, 16/79 and 3/79 with modification. The appellants made an application to the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Shillong on 12-2-1982 for review of the Assistant Collectors' order under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Shillong vide his Orde...
H.H. Sir Sawai Man Singhji (Huf) Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD102(Delhi)
1. These are seven appeals pertaining to Late H.H. Sir Sawai Man Singhji (HUF) - (Bigger HUF). The Wealth-tax appeals for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1983-84 and the Income-tax appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1984-85 have been filed on behalf of the assessee HUF by the coparcener Maharaja Prithvi Raj. In respect of the Wealth-tax assessment year 1983-84, the department has also filed an appeal.2. The following identical grounds have been raised by the assessee HUF in its Wealth-tax & Income-tax appeals referred to above :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CWT/CIT (Appeals) legally erred in setting aside the assessment merely on the statement of the Counsel of the Karta that since he has accepted the stand of the Department that the status of late Maharaja was 'Individual' and he inherits the entire estate on the basis of rule of primogeniture, which statement is incorrect on facts. The Hon'ble ITAT has already dec...
Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT332
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the acquisition proceeding pertaining to 11 bids was of land in Khasra No. 56 and 819 bids was of land in Khasra No. 57 located in Rajpura Chawni. (2) A Notification dated November 13, 1959 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act indicating the intention of the Government to acquire land measuring 34, 070 acres as shown in the map attached to the Notification as Annexure '1' comprised in Blocks A to T and X for public purpose namely the planned development of Delhi. It was made clear in the Notification that the Map could also be inspected by the persons concerned in the various offices mentioned therein. Subsequently, a Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated December 30, 1968 was issued and it refers to 56 Bighas arid 6 bids was of land of Rajpura Chawni comprising various field numbers enumerated therein including field Nos. 56 and 57. Thereafter on September 7, 1973, a notice under Section 9 was issue...
Shiv Shankar Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(30)LC169(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue by order dated 15th December, 1989 made in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act directed the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was detained on 18th December, 1989. The order of detention and continued detention of the petitioner is under challenge in this petition.2. On facts there does not appear to be any dispute. The petitioner made a representation dated 8th January, 1990 and, inter alias requested for revocation of the detention order. One of the grounds taken in the petition to the validity of the order of detention and continued detention of the petitioner is delay in consideration of the said representation and its disposal. It is well ...
Jogeshwar Dyal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(30)LC168(Delhi)
P.N. Nag, C.J.1. Rule D.B.2. Both the parties agree that the matter be heard today.3. By this writ petition petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and for quashing the order of detention No. 673.645.89-Cus.VIII dated 12th December, 1989. The said order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. It appears that 166 pieces of foreign marked gold were recovered from a fiat car No. BHQ-7579 in which the petitioner was traveling.4. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention were not supplied to the petitioner. The documents which are alleged to have not been supplied are Annexure 'A' to the panchnama of seizure of foreign marked gold biscuits from the said car and a voluntary statement of Shri Sushil Kumar Raut, the co-detenu of the petitioner. Item No. 3 of the list of d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »