Delhi Court January 1991 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.
Tribhuvan Nath Goel Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT375
S.C. Jain, J.(1) This is a case in which Sudesh Kumar a tenant allegedly received injuries at the hands of his landlord Tribhuvan Nath Goel and his relations. On the basis of evidence the trial magistrate convicted the accused under Section 325/34 IPC. However, the accused persons were granted the benefit of probation under Section 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act and the petitioners were released on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 each for maintaining peace and good behavior for two years. They were ordered to be kept under supervision under Section 4(3) of the Act. (2) In appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, conviction under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code was upheld, but the Addl Sessions. Judge modified the order on the point of sentence to the extent that the bond amount was reduced to Rs. 3000.00 from Rs. 5000.00 and the period of bond was reduced to one year and the supervision by Probation Officer under S. 4(3) was set aside. (3) Aggrieved, this re...
Hidesign Vs. Hi-design Creations
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi243; 43(1991)DLT653
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The plaintiff Mrs. Pampa Kapoor is carrying o the business under the name of M/s Hidesign at and from 4, Caserne Stree? Post Box No. 92, Pondicherry. It is stated in the plaint that she is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, exporting and selling feather garments, bags, belts, brief cases, wallets etc. for the past several years. 1A.It is asserted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff adopted the trade mark Hidesign, which was represented in a special and particular manner on 5.5.1977. it is stated that the plaintiff used the mark not only as a trade mark, but also a trade description, and it is further stated that the said mark appears permanently on all the products and all the literature of the plaintiff during the course of her business. (2) The plaintiff claims that she is the prior adopter of the said t A mark vis-a-vis the defendant, and is entitled to use the said name as a prior adopter of the said 'design'. It is also asserted that in vi...
international Airport Authority of India Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi302; 43(1991)DLT601a
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The desire not to pay tax is not only the prerogative of the private individual or an organisation but, as is evident from the present case, even a government organisation is not averse to spending considerable amount of money for the purpose of litigating in an attempt to avoid taxes sought to be realised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi u/S. 113 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Apt.(2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is an authority constituted under the proviisions of the International Airport Authority Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1AA Act). The reason for filing the present writ petition was that a notice of demand dated 16th February, 1987 which was issued by the respondent Corporation levying the property tax of a sum of Rupees 1,71,71, 786.65 P. This was levied in relation to the Indira Gandhi International Airport Terminal II. This demand was raised by bill of 16th February, 1987 and the aforesaid sun included arrears fr...
Luxmi Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs. Mohini Gujral
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT342
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 25th August 1989. A petition for eviction was filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioner from house built on Plot No. B-428 New Friends Colony, New Delhi. It was alleged in the eviction petition that the premises were let out to the petitioner on 7th December 1976. The reasons for letting out the premises on that date have been stated in paragraph 18 (a) (iii) of the petition. The respondent has stated that her husband died on 5th November 1976 when there was a decoity in the house and the premises were let out to the petitioner under unfortunate circumstances. The respondent has averred that the premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purpose and she required them for her residence. An application for leave to defend was filed by the petitioner before the ...
In Re: National Radiators and Oil
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)(41)LC83Tri(Delhi)
1. Intelligence was gathered by the Anti-Evasion Branch, Central Excise Collectorate, New Delhi that M/s. National Radiators & Oil Coolers, F-26/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-20 (hereinafter referred to as the said party) are engaged in the manufacture of radiator cores and radiator assemblies for internal combustion engines, they were holding a valid central excise licence L-4 No. 14/T.I. 68/MOD IV/85 and are wrongly classifying the products with intent to evade payment of appropriate central excise duty. Accordingly, the central excise officers of Anti-Evasion Branch visited the factory premises of the said party on 4.7.1989. On scrutiny of the classification list submitted by the party from time to time in Form-1 with effect from 2.4.1986 to 1.4.1989, it was observed that the party had mis-classified their products viz., Radiator cores and Radiator assemblies under three sub-heading Nos. i.e., 8409,00 (for use solely or principally with the engines of heading No...
Moti Lal Banarsi Dass Vs. M/S. Delhi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi192
ORDER1. This is plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 1,54,530/-. Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. The suit has been instituted through Shanti Lal Jain, a partner of the plaintiff. Defendant, a private limited company, is stated to be the promoter of a commercial complex to be constructed at Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The plaintiff has stated that S. R. Kapoor, an employee of the defendant, approached the plaintiff for purchase of a commercial space in the proposed building of' the defendant. This was on or about 1-4-1982. The plaintiff provisionally booked a space and gave Rs. 1,01,000/- by means of a cheque to the defendant. It is stated that it was an agreed term that in case the plaintiff did not feel inclined to purchase this space, the amount would be refunded with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Document Ext. D. W. 1/1 being form for booking the commercial space was signed by the plaintiff on 30-3-1982 for the purpose. Plaintiff says it was sig...
Shri Atul Gupta and ors. Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT53; 1991(20)DRJ298
Sunanda Bhandare, J. 1. This landlord's second appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 14.9.1973. The brief facts of the case areas follows : 2. Three shops bearing No. 5, 6 and 7 Krishna Building, Paharganj,New Delhi were let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 102/-, to respondent No. 1 bylate Smt. Kishen Devi, predecessor in interest of the appellants. A petitionfor eviction on the ground of sub-letting was filed by Smt. Kishen Devi on1.2.1968 against the respondents alleging that respondent No. 1 had partedwith possession of the aforesaid shops in favor of respondent No. 2 without the consent in writing of Smt. Kishen Devi, The contractual tenancy was terminated by notice dated 18.11.1967 and the shops being in the walled city of Delhi, necessary permission was obtained from the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act for filing the eviction petition. The respondents resis...
Shyam Antenna Electricals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC738Tri(Delhi)
1. The question that arises for a decision in this appeal relates to the value of transistors imported by the appellants under a bill of entry covering two invoices dated 5-4-1990 and 18-4-1990. The goods comprised Avantek Silicon transistors 2000 nos. and Avantek transistors FLT (model ATF 10135). The appellants declared a value of Rs. 1,06,160/-. The Customs after due process enhanced the value to Rs. 2,13,841.78 by the impugned order, and demanding duty on the enhanced value, confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty also. Hence this appeal.2. Shri Puri, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the two transistors were components for dish antenna manufactured by the appellants. He stated that these two were critical components and were manufactured by only two Units in the world, one in Japan and the other in United States of America. The present import was from the United States. The learned Advocate submitted that the United States controls the export of the trans...
Roxy Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC361Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises and directed against the Order-in Original No.4/87 issued under C. No. V (33B)/15/45-CE/85/1035 dated 5-5-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The appellants M/s. Roxy Enterprises (P) Limited, Delhi are manufacturers of Electric wires and cables falling under Tariff Item 33-B of Central Excise Tariff. The subject matter of this appeal, according to the Department, is that the appellants have suppressed their production of Electric Wires and cables valued at Rs. 86,97,946.80 and evaded Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 10,31,772/-. On 10-7-1985 Central Excise (Preventive) staff of MOD-II, New Delhi visited the factory to verify the stock and central excise records maintained by the appellants and noticed that stock declared by the appellants to the State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as on 25-2-1985 and stock taking report of the State Bank of India on 25-4-1985, when compared with the entries in their RG-1 Register on their resp...
Rathi Industrial Equipment Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-1991
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC232
1. The importers/appellants have imported the goods described as "Dust Catcher Bags Tubing (Non Woven Filter Media) Dia 4.5" polyester T/560/TSS in random length of 50 mtrs." The appellants have claimed its assessment under Tariff Heading 59.16/17 which reads as follows :- "Transmission, Conveyor or elevator belts or belting, of textile material, whether or not strengthened with metal or other material; textile fabrics and tex-tile articles, of a kind commonly used in machinery or plant." The appellants have claimed assessment of the goods on the ground that they are textile fabrics of a kind commonly used in machinery or plant.1.1 Department, on the other hand, has assessed the goods under Tariff Heading 59.01/15 which includes, inter alia, felt which undoubtedly it is.2. The lower appellate authority has not considered the goods fit for assessment as textile article on the ground that the goods have been imported in running lengths and they have not been cut to shape and size. They ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »