Delhi Court January 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 3 of about 118 results (0.022 seconds)Collector of Customs Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC81
1. The above 9 appeals have been preferred by the Department against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 21-3-1990, holding that landing charges should be calculated on actuals for determining the assessable value. The respondents herein had registered their purchase order under Project Import Regulations, 1965 for substantial expansion of their Visakha Refinery Expansion Project. The bills of entry were provisionally assessed under project imports and on completion of the project, the importer submitted the necessary documents for finalisation, claiming actual landing charges. The Assistant Collector finalised the bills of entry on the basis of notional landing charges at the rate of 1.3 per cent being added to the CIF value. The lower appellate authority held as follows : "Once it is agreed that landing charges are includible in the assessable value, the next question is whether the quantum should be decided with reference to actuals as certified by Port Trust or a...
Tag this Judgment!Komal Plastic Industries Vs. Roxy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas61(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) This order will dispose of CAs. 4096, 4097/89 and Ca 653/90. The circumstances under which these applications have been filed are in brief as follows :- Three winding up petitions being Cp 80/86, Cp 30/87 and Cp 149/87 have been filed seeking the winding up of the respondent company. The petitioning creditor in these three petitions are different but the company of which the winding up is sought is the same, namely, M/s. Roxy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). Cp 80/86 was filed in April 1986, Cp 30/87 was filed in December 1986 and Cp 149/87 was filed in August 1987. In all these petitions notices were issued to the respondent to show cause why the petition be not admitted. Cp 80/86 was, however admitted by orders made on 1st October 1986 but the orders for advertisement of the petition were deferred. In Cp 30/87 on 2nd August 1989 Sh. S L. Nagpal and Sh. Sanjay Nagpal being father and son respectively filed Case 4096 and 4097 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Singh Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT382
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Appellants land measuring 22 bighas and 5 bids was situated in the revenue estate of Mehrauli was acquired by the Delhi Administration vide Notification dated 13th November, 1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Land Acquisition Collector gave and announced his award thereby fixing the compensation at Rs. 1200.00 per bigha. Reference was made under Section 18 of the Act and the Id. Addl. District Judge vide his judgment dated 7th April, 1970 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,000.00 per bigha. Not being satisfied with the judgment of the Addl. District Judge present appeal has been preferred whereby .the appellants have claimed Rs. 5.000.00 per bigha as compensation. (2) We have gone through the impugned judgment and also the evidence placed on record. The learned Addl. .District Judge discussed the various documents exhibited before him by the claimants namely. Ex. A.13 in which the rate was awarded by the Land Acq...
Tag this Judgment!Murti Devi Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT18
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Delhi Administration vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Ac, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) dated 24th May, 1961 acquired the land of the appellant's falling in Khasra No. 324 (1 bigha 18 biswas), 316 (2 bighas and 19 biswas), 322 (4 bighas 12 biswas), 352 (5 bighas 1 biswas), 353 (1 bigha 35 biswas), 354 (6 biswas), 364/1 f4 bighas 14 biswas), 361 (15 biswas), 362 (8 bighas 14 biswas) measuring in all 30 bighas and 14 biswas. This was land of the first eategory. The other land which.was acquired fell in Kh. No. 321 C5 bighas 4 biswas) and 345 (1 bigha 14 biswas) in all 6 bighas 18 bids was land of second category. Kb. No. 327 (1 bigha 2 biswas) 328 (1 bigha 2 biswas) and 330 (2 bighas 19 biswas) in all 5 bighas and 3 bids was called the land of third category. Khasra No. 334 (3,bighas 1 biswas) 181 (6 bighas 18 biswas) and 323 (1 bigha 18 biswas) in all 11 bighas and 17 bids was land of fourth category situated in the revenue estate of...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT697
Usha Mehra, J.(1) APPELLANT'S land measuring 15 bighas and 7 bids was situated in the revenue estate of Mandoli Fazalpur was acquired vide notification dated 3rd March, 1964 issued by the Delhi Administration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Land Acquisition Collector gave his Award No. 1896 dt. 30th November, 1965 whereby he awarded compensation @ Rs. 750.00 per bigha. Being not satisfied with the award reference under Section 18 of the Act made by the appellants. The learned Addl. District Judge answered the reference by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 850/' per bigha. (2) Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge dated 14th October, 1969 present appeal has been preferred. The short point for consideration is, what amount of compensation the appellants are entitled to (3) We have perused the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge- and the evidence placed on record. The learned Addl. District Judge placed relianc...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmaljit Arora Vs. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT394; 1991(20)DRJ236
M.C. Jain, C.J.(1) This civil revision raises an important question as to the interpretation of S. 3(c); as inserted by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, (for short, the Amendment Act). That question arose before Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.N.Goswami in the aforesaid revision He, by his order dated 9.1.1989, referred the question to be answered authoritatively by the Division Bench of this Court. The question that arose before him was to whether the Amendment Act applies to the pending proceedings and according to him as the question would arise in a number of pending cases before ibis Court as will as before the Rent Control and the Appellate authority, so for deciding the question authoritatively, reference was made by him for deciding the said question by the Division Bench.(2) We may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the present reference.(3) The petitioner in this petition, Mrs. Nirmaljeet Arora let out the premises in question to the respondent on 14.7.80 at a renta...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1991)ACC612
S.C Jain, J.1. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 4-2-1979 at about 6.20 a.m., opposite Khanpur Depot on Mehrauli Road, petitioner Mohan Lai while driving truck No. DHL 22 rashly and negligently on public road, struck against Dalip Singh and caused injuries to him. The petitioner did not stop the truck and succeeded in running away from the spot. The injured was removed to Safdarjung Hospital by Attar Singh (P.W.ll), who later on succumbed to his injuries.2. As the petitioner succeeded in running away from the spot after causing the accident, notice under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dated 8.2.1979 it was served upon Shri Pritam Singh owner of the truck, who in his reply (Ex. PW10/A) informed that on 4.2.1979 at 6.20 a.m. (Date & Time of accident) Shri Mohan Lai (Petitioner) was the driver of his truck No. DHL 22 and that he was in his employment and he would produce him. The petitioner was arrested on 15.2.1979 and challaned for the offences under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT546
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Shri Virender Singh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was prosecuted under S. 3 of the Rly Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966 and was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months under Section 3 of the said Act. His appeal before the Addl Sessions Judge was dismissed by order dated February 5, 1982. (2) Aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Addl Sessions Judge. (3) Both the courts below after perusing the evidence on record, the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner recorded by an officer of Railway Protection Force and other circumstances came to the conclusion that the petitioner on October 19, 1977 at about 9.00 p.m. at the mineral siding gate was found in possession of 37 pig iron slabs weighing 17 quintals wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court on Its Own Motion Vs. S.K. Garg
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT17b
Usha Mehra, J. (1) This court, on a complaint received from Shri S M. Aggarwal, Additional, Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, initiated contempt proceedings on its own motion against the present contemner Shri S P. Garg, Additional Commissioner of Police, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. The cause which led to the present proceedings is the incident of 7th March, 1990 whereby it is alleged that the contemner obstructed the administration of Justice by his conduct. (2) Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge is resident of Civil Lines Area. Delhi. In his report in , court he has stated that on 7th. March, 1990 he was going to court at Shahdara in his Car No. DDF-15 (hereinafter called 'the said car') There being unusual rush on that day, lots of vehicles and buses passed from the side of the Monkey bridge turn going to old Yamuna bridge. It was at this place that the vehicles coming. from the tide of Civil Lines were allowed to pass Hardly bad he crossed about 15 steps from the mouth of the bri...
Tag this Judgment!Moon Light Electronics Industrial Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT527
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the threatened-cancellation of the lease of the plot No. 38. Block-W, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II. It appears that a request was made to the D.D.A. for the transfer of 90% share of the said plot in favor of the petitioner. This request was made on 8th January, 1981.2. It is not in dispute that the D.D.A. is entitled to charge 50% of the unearned increase. The unearned increase is to be arrived at by seeing the market value of the land on the date when the transfer is sought and the registered price at which it was purchased.3. The respondents are claiming from the petitioner unearned increase regarding the price of land at Rs. 1191 /- per sq. meter. Earlier about Rs. 29,000/-(provisionally) had been charged as unearned increase which was paid, but the charge at the rate of Rs. 1191/- per. sq. meter is on the basis that the auction rates in the year 1981 was Rs. 1191/- per sq. meter.4. It is true that the rate which is to b...
Tag this Judgment!