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.
Krishna Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ13
D.K. Chakravorty, J. (1) The grievance of the applicant, who is presently about 53 years of age, that since her entry into Government service as a Telephone Operator, the has not received any promotion. (2) She was appointed as Telephone Operator as a direct recruit w.e.f. 23-12-1957 and was confirmed w.e.f. 16-8-62 in that grade. The post of Telephone Operator was abolished w.c.f. 1-1-1975 on the installation of Pabx Exchange in the Deptt. of Agriculture and Cooperation. She was declared surplus w.e.f 28-2-1974. Thereafter, she was nominated against the post of Computer and she joined that post w.c.f. 30-5-1974. The benefit of the previous post of Telephone Operator was not given to her for fixing her seniority in the new post of Computer, as a surplus employee who has been reappointed in a new post in the same scale is not allowed such a benefit. (3) On 7-11-1985, the Department of Personnel and Training issued an Office Memorandum which provides, inter alia, that 'ail Telephone Oper...
Prakash Wati Vs. Dayawanti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi48; 42(1990)DLT421; ILR1990Delhi326
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This suit is at the admission stage. Counsel for the plaintiff was called upon to satisfy this Court whether proper court fee has been paid on the various reliefs claimed in this suit. The plaintiff has claimed the following reliefs in this suit (A)pass a permanent decree for partition of the suit property mentioned in Para I and more specifically detailed in the plain attached Along with the plaint declaring the shares of the plaintiff which is l/6th; (b) a Local Commissioner be appointed to suggest a mode of partition of the suit property by metes and bounds; (c) after submitting the report of the Local Commissioner, a final decree for partition be passed delineating and separating the share of the plaintiff in the suit property ; (d) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. I from preventing the use, occupation and possession of the suit property by the plaintiff; (e) grant permanent injunction restraining defendant No. I from selling, mortg...
Sumta Exports Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT159
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The suit is for making award dated 19.2.85 of Mr. G.B. Mehta, sole arbitrator, as Rule of the court. The arbitrator himself filed the award and the proceedings in court.(2) Notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties. M/s Sumta Exports-the claimant filed objections to the award under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') and these were registered as is 3935/85.(3) After the pleadings were complete the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections contained in is 3935/85 of the petitioner Surnta Exports 2. Relief. Parties were allowed to lead evidence by means of affidavits. Arbitration record was to be read in evidence.(4) M/S Sumta Exports-claimant entered into an agreement on 14.10.81 with India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (ITDC) for supply of Dholpur stone tiles required for the construction of Ashok Yatri Niwas of the Itdc The total supply was of the value of ...
Ved Parkash Sikri @ Vedi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT295
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for his immediate release and quashing the order of detention dated 15th February, 1990.(2) Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India 243 passed an order dated 15th February 1990 as an empowered Officer under Sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (for short COFEPOSA), for the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. (3) Briefly stated the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that on 15th January, 1990 an information was received by Delhi Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate from its Jalandhar Zonal Office that during the investigation of a case against one Satish Kumar Malhotra it was revealed that he used to...
Gurmeet Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1264; 42(1990)DLT595; 1990RLR393
ORDER1. In this writ petition prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 7th December, 1989 passed under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act) by the Additional Secretary tb the Government of India with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing him from engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. 2. Detention order dated 23rd November, 1989 was passed against the petitioner by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi in respect of an incident dated 18th June, 1989. The petitioner was detained on 25th November, 1989 and the impugned declaration order was passed on 7th December, 1989. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his argument to one point only. He has submitted that the petitioner was not informed about his right of making a representation against the order of declaration either in the declaration itself or subsequently ...
Ravi Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT361; 1990(19)DRJ202
R L. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff for setting aside order dated 16-4-90 of the Learned Deputy Registrar and further that additional documents already filed by the Plaintiff should be deemed to have been admitted by the Respondent because they were not admitted or denied by the Defendant. Further prayer is that dates for recording oral evidence of the parties may also be fixed.(2) Notice of this appeal was issued to the Respondent-DDA. But no reply to this appeal has been filed on its behalf. On 304-1990Ms.Bharti Patney Advocate appeared for the Defendant. She was granted two weeks time to file the reply. No reply, however, was filed on the next 2 or 3 dates. Today even the Counsel is absent.(3) I have head Mr, H.C.Mittal, special attorney of the appellant By order dated 9-2-90 after framing of the issues the Court bad allowed six weeks time to the parties to file their additional documents if any That order was. however, not complied with by the Responde...
Chet Ram Vashisht and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT466
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The appellant's land measuring 8 being 19 bids was situated in Revenue Estate of Village Chaukhandi was acquired vide Nov. Notification dated Nov. 13, 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The notification containing the declaration of intended acquisition under Section 6 of the said Act was made on October 8, 1965. The Award given by the Land Acquisition Collector bearing No. 1955 of Village Chaukhandi dated March 2, 1967, classified the whole land into two blocks i.e. A and B. For block A compensation allowed was at the rate of Rs. 3000.00 per bigha and for block B at the rate of Rs. 1000.00 per bigha. Whole of the land of the appellant fell in block A. However, on a reference having been made to the Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the Act, Shri K.S. Siddhu the then Learned Additional District Judge on appeal enhanced the compensation of the land to Rs. 9000.00 per bigha. In this appeal the appellant ha...
Jai Dev and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT637
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The appellant's land measuring 8 bigha 19 bids was situated in Revenue Estate of Village Chaukhandi was acquired vide Notification dated November 13,1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The notification containing the declaration of intended acquisition under Section 6 of the said Act was made on October 8, 1955. The Award given by the Land Acquisition Collector bearing No. 1955 of Village Chaukhandi dated March 2, i967, classified the whole land into two blocks i.e. A and B. For block A compensation allowed was at the rate of' Rs. 3000/. per bigha and for block B at the rate of Rs. 1000.00 per bigha. The land of the appellant fell in block A as well as in block B. However, on a reference having been made to the Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the Act, Shri C.D. Vasishta, Additional District Judge, Delhi vide his award/ decree dated 30th May, 1975 enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3.000.00 per bigha to R...
Somany Pilkingtons Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1990
Reported in: [1990]34ITD531(Delhi)
ORDERPer Chander - This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the learned CIT (A), VI, New Delhi dated 17-1-1985 relating to the asst. year 1980-81. There is only one ground in appeal and that is as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing that the depreciation be allowed @ 40% as against 30% allowed by ignoring the fact that depreciation at the enhanced rate of 40% is allowable in terms of I. T. (5th Amendment) Rules, 1980 for asst. year 1981-82 as the amended rules were effective from 24-7-1980.'2. On the above ground, we have heard the parties. The issue really before us is as to the date from which the Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1980 should be considered effective so as to entitle the assessed to claim depreciation @ provided therein which is 40%. In this regard, we have considered the submissions of both the sides, along with the authorities cited. In exercise of the pow...
Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT124TriDel
1. The sole issue for determination in this appeal is eligibility of the appellants to the benefit of exemption from payment of basic customs duty and additional duty vide Notification 39/85 in the following circumstances:- 2. The Appellants, inter alia, imported Denatured Ethyl Alcohol with 0.5% Acetal dehyde and filed a Bill of Entry seeking clearance of 2000 kilolitres of the said goods. The said goods were allowed clearance duty free vide Notification No. 39/85 dated 28-2-1985 as amended by Notification 95/85 dated 17-3-1985 subject to the condition that the importers produce certificate from the officer not lower in rank than the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Ministry of Industries and Fertilizers to the effect that the said materials cleared without payment of duty under the said notification have in fact been used exclusively for industrial purposes. The Appellants had executed a bond supported by Bank Guarantee for 10% differential duty for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »