Delhi Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Stepwell Industries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD514(Delhi)
1. These are applications under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)-II, New Delhi praying that certain questions of law be referred for the opinion of the Hon'ble High Court. The Tribunal's Registry has reported that R.A. No. 979 is barred by 73 days (the correct figure should be 83 days) and the two other applications are barred by 114 days. This office objection was stoutly supported by the assessee-respondent as well.2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee and have perused the relevant material. In Reference Application No. 979 arising out of I.T.A. No.3537 the Tribunal's order was delivered at the office of the Chief Commissioner on 22-5-1989 and was received by the CIT, Delhi (Central)-II, New Delhi on 14-8-1989. The Reference Application was presented before the Tribunal on 12-10-1989. According to the Applicant-Commissioner the limitation prescribed under Se...
Kaushalya Devi and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT370
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Prima facic it appears that this suit is in an abuse of the process of the court. Facts of the matter are Des Raj deceased, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs 2 & 3 and defendant No. 3, was having Tahbazari receipt in his name in respect of the place near Nutan Marathi School, Near Paharganj Thana. Delhi Development Authority under its policy of getting the non-conforming business premises shifted to conforming areas ui accordance with the Meste,r Plan and Zonal Development Plan had given plot No. 84, Block No. 1, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, to Des Raj in lieu of the place where he was carrying on the business on the basis of Tehbazari. The dispute has arisen between the parties with regard to the said plot. defendant No. 3 had moved the Delhi Development Authority for getting her share in the plot separated and the Delhi Development Authority had in 1987 separated her share in the. plot and wanted to give possession to defendant No. 3. A spate of suits w...
Indian Farmers Fertilizer Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)(51)ELT527TriDel
1. These appeals relate to a common issue and are.therefore, disposed of by this common order. Appeal Nos. E/2680 to 2682/86-C are appeals by the Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. against a common order-in-appeal No. 300-302/AHD-98-100/86 dated 30-9-1986. This order is of the Collector of Central Excise(Appeals) Bombay which disposed of three orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise(N.G.) Ahmedabad dated 24-11-1983, 3-5-1984 and 28-9-1984. Appeal No.E/2640/89-C has been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, and Customs, Ahmedabad under Section 35-E(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in terms of a direction from the Central Board of Excise & Customs dated 9-2-1989. This order is passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 35E(1) and it is an order by which the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad has been directed to file an application before the Tribunal for looking into the legality and propriety of an adjudication order dated 12-2-1...
Mitra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC360Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Colllector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay denying the benefit of Notification No. 311/86 dated 13-5-1986.2. A few facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are that the appellants imported a Colour Scanner for their Printing Industry and got the Bill of Entry registered with the Contract Cell of Bombay Customs House for assessment under Project Imports under Chapter 98.01 of the Customs Tariff. On arrival of the goods the appellants claimed the benefit under Notification No. 132/85 dated 19-4-1985, which exempts goods falling under Heading No. 98.01 from a basic duty of Customs in excess of 30%. Simultaneously, the appellants also claimed benefit of Notification No. 311/86 dated 13-5-1986, which exempts goods from the whole of auxiliary duty of Customs provided, they are specified in Col. No. 3 of the Table. In the instant case Colour Scanner are specifically figuring under Sr. No. 46 against Chapter No.90...
Shaukat Ali Khan Vs. Babu Khan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi190; I(1991)BC223; 42(1990)DLT648; 1990(20)DRJ38; 1991(33)ECC137; 1990RLR391
ORDERP. K. BAHRI, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,54,728/-. Facts of the case as mentioned in the plaint, in brief, are that the plaintiff was a resident of Saudi Arabia and he entered into a partnership with the defendant and as the plaintiff was residing in Saudi Arabia it was agreed that the defendant would look after and manage the business of the partnership and the partnership was to be carried on under the name and style of Eagle Paints and Chemicals as per partnership deed dated October 12, 1982. The plaintiff had, from time to time, sent a total amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- towards capital and the partnership business was commenced in the rented premises No. 1624/14, Gobindpur, Kalkaji, New Delhi and it continued for 1 1/2 years and in about April 1983, a plot No. RZ259/19, Tughlaqabad Extension, New Delhi, was purchased for installing the factory. But as the defendant stopped rendering any accounts although the partnership business was earning profits, the plaintiff the...
Chiman Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ57
P.K. Kartha, J. (1) The grievance of the applicant who has worked as Gangman in the Northern Railways, relates to his non-regularization on the ground that on verification, his period of work prior to 4.10.1978 was found to be forged and bogus. (2) The facts of the case in brief are as follows. According to the applicant, he was engaged as a Casual Labour on 3.1.1977 in the Engineering Department of Northern Railway, that he worked as a Gangman in the Maintenance of Railway Track up to 1980. that he was not regularised though he attained temporary status in 1985 and was paid regular pay-ssale, that he bad undergone and passed the medical examination for regulations in 1983, that his services were terminated on 15.3.1985 but on his representation, he was employed on 144.1985, that the respondents held a screening in 1986 for regularization of Casual Labourers when he was not considered and selected, that 197 Casual Labourers who were junior to him were regularised, that he filed 0A-2227...
Dental Products of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC28
1. M/s. Dental Products of India Ltd., 253, A-Z, Industrial Estate, G.Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Bombay - 400013 have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Briefly the facts of the case are that Dental Products of India Ltd., Bombay are manufacturers of artificial teeth holding Central Excise Licence in Form L-4 bearing No.BLS/II/NES/68/7185 dated 20th November, 1985. The appellant had filed a classification list No. 144/86 dated nil classifying their products "Artificial Teeth" under sub-heading 9021. 00 of Heading No. 90. 21 of Chapter No. 90 and had claimed exemption from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 71/86-CE., dated 10th February, 1986 as amended by Notification No. 164/86-CE., dated 1st March, 1986 at Item No. 11. The Assistant Collector held that the description given under sub-heading 9021. 00 of Heading 90. 21 of Chapter No. 90 as "Artificial Parts of the Body" correctly confirms the descriptio...
Rajiv Jaiswal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT314; II(1990)DMC491; 1990(19)DRJ175
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for being released in anticipation of their arrest in Fir No. 189/90, Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi under Sections 498-A/ 304-B read with 34 Indian Penal Code .(2) Rajiv Jaiswal petitioner no.1 was married to Seema aged about 19 years on 30th November, 1989 and since then she was residing with her husband and in-laws.(3) Mool Chand petitioner no. 2 and Smt. Santosh (Public Witness 3) are the parents and Sanjiv Jaiswal (Public Witness 4) is the brother, and N.P. Jaiswal (Public Witness 5) is the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of petitioner No.1.(4) On 13th May, 1990 Smt. Seema died of unnatural death at the house of her in-laws regarding which intimation was sent to the police. Inquest proceeding were conducted by Sdm when her parents and relations did not express any doubt in connection with the death of Smt. Seema.(5) A complaint dated 15th June, 1990 was made by the father of the dece...
M/S. Avis International Ltd. Vs. M/S. Avi Footwear Industries and Anot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi22; 1990(2)ARBLR352(Delhi); ILR1991Delhi414; 1990RLR395
ORDER1. By this order I intend to deal with two interim applications bearing I.A. No. 89 of 1990 and I.A. No. 2266 of 1990, which have been filed in Suit No. 18 of 1990.2. I.A. No. 88 of 1990 is an application under Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the plaintiffs seek to obtain an order of injunction, restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, stockists, dealers and all other persons from using the trade mark AEVIS in respect of shoes or any other trade mark which is confusing or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark AVIS of the plaintiffs, bearing registration No. 352018 (in clause 25). The plaintiffs state that they have got the said mark AVIS registered in respect of readymade garments, wearing apparels including jeans, jackets, shirts, blouses, socks, hosiery, brassieres and footwear, and that the mark is registered on 1-8-1979.3. The other application bearing I.A. No. 2266 of 1990, which I am going to deal with, is an applicatio...
Sahib Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ687
ORDER1. Sahib Singh, petitioner, was challenged to face trial for committing the offences punishable under S. 302, IPC and S. 27 of the Arms Act for causing the death of one Mukesh by stabbing on 27-7-88. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner claimed to be tried by a Juvenile Court, being below the age of 16 years on the date of commission of the offence The prosecution contested the application by asserting that the petitioner was more than 16 years of age and as such, is liable to be proceeded with by the regular court. By order dated 13-10-89, H. C. Goel, J. directed Shri P. D. Gupta, M.M. to hold an enquiry under S. 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, as to whether the petitioner was a minor on the date of the commission of the offence or not. This order was passed while considering the petitioner's application for his release on bail. 3. In the enquiry proceedings, the prosecution produced three witnesses while the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »