Delhi Court January 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 2 of about 118 results (0.021 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Union Carbide (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC52
1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein applied in 1967 for L-6 licence for receiving the Toluol falling under Tariff Heading 6 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item under Chapter X Procedure in terms of Notification No. 276/67 dated 21-12-1967 (as amended). This Toluol was used by them for making C.P. 3 coating used in the manufacture of layer flat cells.2. It is not disputed that in the year 1967-68 the question was raised as to the precise use of Toluol brought by the respondents under Chapter X. The then Deputy Chief Chemist examined the product and reported 'C.P. 3 coating is not similar to that of a normal paint or varnish sold in the market nor its function is that of paint and varnish, hence it cannot be identified as paint or varnish'. The question about the character of C.P. coating manufactured by the respondents out of Toluol was again raised in 1977. Test report of the then Deputy Chief Chemist dated 14-10-1980 was that 'thus from the mode of manu...
Tag this Judgment!V.D. Seth Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991RLR215
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Petitioner joined Govt. of India in 1958. He was transferred to Food Corp. of India in 1969. He became Dy Manager in 1977. In 1982, he was working as Distt. Manager and was alleged to have taken bribe. He was charged with misconduct u/Reg. 31, 32 of Fci (Staff) Regulations. Enquiry was begun on 17.2.84 and concluded on 25.5.85, when Govt. was not allowed further time to produce evidence & its case was closed. Petitioner was exonerated and re-instated. In Aug., 88, he was promoted. Then in Jan., 89, Chairman of Fci ordered u/Reg. 74, review of the order of 1985 by which petitioner was exonerated and ordered holding of enquiry by examining witnesses who were earlier not allowed to be examined. Petitioner Challenged this by filing W.P.] After detailing above, Judgment is :(2) The most important question now to be considered is as to whether the impugned order dated 17.1.89 has been passed by the Chairman, Fci within a reasonable period. It may be noted that the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Foray International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC580Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants herein imported a consignment of 46875 metres of polyester bonded waddings valued at Rs. 4,77,780.30p. They filed a bill of entry registered on 15-7-1985. The appellants produced an advance licence and sought clearance of the said goods duty free under the duty exemption certificate (DEC). The description of the goods in the advance licence was 'polyester bonded waddings having width of 110 cms.' On examination the goods were, however, found to be polyester bonded waddings having width of 112 cms. instead of 110 cms. as mentioned in the invoice attached with the bill of entry and as mentioned in the advance ITC licence and DEC. Each roll had a printed chit containing roll number, length, weight and width; the width mentioned in the chit was 112 cms. in respect of each roll. Since the width of the polyester bonded waddings did not conform to that described in the ITC licence and the DEC and the invoice, they were asked to produce a valid import licence to cover impor...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Girdhari Lal and anr. Vs. Collector Central Excise
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT535
M.C. Jain, C.J.(1) By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to respondent No. 1 to return to the petitioners 22 gold guineas, weighing approximately 174.500 gms. seized from the business premises of the petitioners. (2) It may be stated that in connection with importing of gold guineas adjudication proceedings were initiated and the Collector of Customs, New Delhi by his order dated 17.2.1983 ordered confiscation of 22 gold guineas. (3) In appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case back to the Collector Central Excise, New Delhi for de-novo adjudication after affording the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to be heard in person to advance arguments and to submit such evidence as is admissible under law. (4) Learned Counsel for the respondent stated that after the remand order by the Tribunal, no action was taken by the Collector of Customs. The Tribunal passed the order on 6th March, 1987. The petitioners made representation for re...
Tag this Judgment!Surjan Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991RLR157
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By way of this writ petition u/Art. 226/227 read with S. 482 Cr. P.C., Surjan Singh has prayed that the order of detention dated 19.3.90 be quashed and he be set at liberty. (2) Facts, briefly stated are that on 29.12.89 the petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport from New York by Lufthansa Airlines flight and after customs clearance he was going out at & intercepted at Exit Gate. The petitioner on inquiry informed the officials of the Customs Department that he was not carrying any contra-band like gold, wrist watches. He was however searched and 8 pieces of gold biscuits weighing 100 gms. each and 3 biscuits weighing 150 gms. each i.e. total weight 1250 gms. of 24 carats purity were recovered. These were seized by the Custom officer u/S. 110 of the Customs Act with the reasonable belief that the same were liable to confiscation having been imported into India in contravention of the prohibition/restrictions imposed upon the import of gold into In...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Parkash Brothers Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi241
ORDER1. These are proceedings under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award dated 29th January 1986 of Mr. S. P. Singh Ahuja, sole Arbitrator, respondent No. 2, as 'Rule of the Court'. On notice being issued, the Arbitrator filed his award and the proceedings in the Court. Then, notice of filing of the award was given to the parties, Respondent No. 1, Union of India, filed objections to the award and these were listed as I. A. No. 4131 of 1986. After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed:' 1. Whether the arbitrator has misdirected himself or the proceedings? 2. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on any of the objections taken up by the objector? 3. Relief.'Thereafter, parties led evidence by means of affidavits.2. A contract was awarded to the petitioner on 21-4-1980 for construction of certain residential accommodation at CPOs at Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, the value of the contract being Rs. 43,77,374.44. The contract was completed...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Sethia Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi285; 1991RLR179
ORDER1. These are three applications in a suit filed on 25-6-1990 seeking perpetual injunction. When the suit was filed there was only one defendant being the Punjab National Bank ('PNB' for short). First application is under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and is by the plaintiff. Second application is under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code and is again by the plaintiff. Third application is by the defendant and is under Order 14, Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Code. In the application seeking amendment of the plaint filed on 811-1990 the plaintiff also seeks to add six more defendants, namely (1) Reserve Bank of India, (2) Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (3) Essal Commodities Limited (In liquidation), (4) Frendial Limited, (5) Shadreed Limited (also in liquidation), and (6) Jokai Tea Holdings Limited. Except for Reserve Bank of India and the Union of India, the defendants sought to be added, the other defendants are all based in Lond...
Tag this Judgment!Gangeshwar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]192ITR180(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following questions to this court : '(i) Whether, in the light of the causes pleaded and circumstances pointed out, any person judicially acting could come to the conclusion that the assessed furnished an estimate which it knew or had reason to believe to be untrue and committed a fault within the meaning of section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ii) Whether the Tribunal's finding is not vitiated in law owing to their ignoring the most important facts on record specifically brought to their notice during the hearing as under : (a) That the account books of the company are closed on 31st October of each year and a statement of accounts duly submitted to the Company Law Department on that basis while the returns of income and the estimate of income have to be prepared by adopting the accounting year as ending on 30th June each year and which requires considerable time for getting the bifurcated accounts and which can be done only after the ...
Tag this Judgment!Parduman Singh Vs. Y.D. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT574
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This civil revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 5th December, 1990 passed by Shri R.S. Mahla Sub Judge, Delhi dismissing the two applications under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 For amendment. The first application was moved for amendment in the written statement while the second application was moved for amendment in the amendment application. (2) The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit alleging himself to be the owner of a plot of land bearing No. HS-17, Kailash Colony Market, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and that the petitioner-defendant of his own showing was a tenant of the suit land. The respondent-plaintiff had terminated the tenancy vide notice dated 26th July, 1980 and thereafter the suit for possession had been filed. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, the stand taken was that the relationship of ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. N.K. Bhatt and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT492
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, remanding the matter to the Assessor and Collector for redetermination of the rateable value after giving proper notice to respondent No. 1 under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Act. (2) On 22.3.1980 the Mcd gave a notice under Section 126 of the Dmc Act to Tara Apartments, Govind Puri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi, and to the different flat holders to whom the flats were allotted. Respondent' No. I owns a two bed-room flat. He paid a sum of Rs. 87,245.00 as the cost of the flat and the same was allotted to him on 25.11.1979. In reply to the said notice dated 22.3.1980, respondent No. I informed the Mcd of the above facts. He further informed that the flat was let out on 25.11.1979 itself for the monthly rental of Rs. 800.00 . The Assessor and Collector fixed the rateable value for the year 1979-80 on that basis and at the rate of Rs. 860.00 per month from the year 1981 onwards. (3) T...
Tag this Judgment!