Delhi Court January 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 6 of about 118 results (0.018 seconds)Seema Devi Vs. Sushil Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: I(1991)DMC447
R.L. Gupta, J.1. This Revision is directed against an order dated 13-12-1989 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi by which she dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner.2. The facts are that the respondent-husband moved a petition for divorce against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act for short). The wife also moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente life. However neither the petitioner nor her counsel appeared on 1-5-1987. thereforee the application under Section 24 was dismissed in default and the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. The ex-parte evidence was recorded on 14-7-1988 and it was ordered to be listed for judgment on 4-8-1988.3. Before that date, however, the petitioner moved the application on 1-8-1988 for setting aside the ex-parte order. The learned Trial Court was of the view that since the hearing i...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Khanna Vs. U.O.i. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi483
ORDERM. L. Varma, J.1. The respondent DDA has sanctioned construction of 'New Friends Club' on a plot of land between the Community Centre Friends Colony, New Delhi and 'C' Block of the said colony. The petitioners challenge the permission granted by DDA to construct the said club on the said plot of land as being vocative of Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) as well as the Master Plan 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Old Master Plan). According to the petitioners, the plot of land in question on which the club building has been sanctioned is supposed to be an open area/ land. The question involved in the petition, thereforee, is as to what is the permissible land use in respect of the plot of land in question..2. The petitioners 1 to 3 are residents of 'C' Block, Friends Colony, New Delhi and petitioner No. 4 is the Welfare Association of the residents of C-Block in Friends Colony. It is not known whether petitioner No. 4 is a registe...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash Bhutani Vs. Kul Bhtjshan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT490
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition is directed .against the order dated 29th January, 1990 passed by Shri R.S. Mahia, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi whereby he has disallowed the application made by the plaintiff, namely Smt Saroj Bhutani for impleading Kumari Deep, who is alleged to have been adopted-during the pendency of the suit by her. (2) The facts giving rise to the revision petition are that the husband of the present plaintiff, Shri 0m Prakash Bhutani, originally filed a suit for declaration against defendants I to 3, that the plaintiff and defendants I to 3 are the joint owners in the property bearing No. P. 52, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi being members of the Hindu undivided family or even as co-owners. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff, Shri 0m Prakash Bhutani, died and the present plaintiff, i.e., Smt, Saroj Bhutani was substituted as a plaintiff in place of the original plaintiff, her husband. It may be noted that defendant No 3 is the mother of the original plain...
Tag this Judgment!Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT167
M.C. Jain, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th August 1982, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M. No. 1225 of 1986 in C.W.P. No. 1697 of 1982. (2) It appears that the order was passed on the application of respondent No. 3 which was an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modifying the earlier order on the stay application passed on 10.1.1983. By that order the present appellant was directed to make payment of half of the back wages without security and there was a further direction to the appellant to continue to pay half of the salary allowances to the workman till the disposal of the writ petition. In continuation of this order dated 20th December, 1982, the learned Judge on 10th January, 1983 ordered that payment should be made @ Rs. 400.00 per month for the purpose of back wages and for future payments. (3) By the impugned order the learned Judge modified the earlier order and a direction was given that the payment should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ashfaq @ Hajtkallu Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2615; 43(1991)DLT504
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) State Government of Rajasthan exercising the powers under Sec. 3, sub-sec. (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act) decided to detain Mohd. Ashfaq @ Haji Kallu in order to prevent him from the activities of keeping, concealing, transporting and disposing of the smuggled goods of Narcotic Drugs. This order was issued on 2nd April, 1990 under the signatures of Shri R. Rama Krishnan, Commissioner & Secretary, (Home), Home Department, Rajasthan. This detention order was served on the petitioner on the same day when the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon were also furnished to him. By way of this petition Mohd. Ashfaq has prayed that the order of detention dated 2nd April, 1990 confirmed on 30th May, 1990 may be quashed and he be set at liberty. (2) According to the case of the respondents the petitioner was wanted in connection with the seizure of 105.750 Kgs. of heroin on 7th March...
Tag this Judgment!Steel and Industrial Forgings Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT609TriDel
1. M/s. Steel & Industrial Forgings Ltd., Athani, Mulagunnathakavu, Trichur, has filed the above captioned two appeals, and appeal No.E/1259/88-B1 and appeal No. E/3783/88 filed by the Revenue, emerge from the same impugned order i.e., Order-in-Original No. 228/87 dated 31st December, 1987 and appeal No. E/1348/88-B1 emerges from order No. 41/88 dated 22-6-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin. Shri A. Vijay Raghvan, learned Consultant, has appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri R.M. Ramchandani, learned SDR, for the Revenue. Both the sides state that the issue involved is common in all the above-captioned three appeals, and the same to be disposed of by this common order. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the same.2. Shri A. Vijay Raghvan, learned Consultant, stated that the goods in dispute are steel forgings (drop forgings) for automobile industries as per the drawings supplied by the automobile manufacturers). Shri Raghvan pleaded that earlier the roughly...
Tag this Judgment!Gold Plast India (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC32Tri(Delhi)
1. The point for determination in this peal is the correct value, for purposes of calculation of customs duty payable, of the goods imported by the appellants, viz. polystyrene resin High Impact Grade No. HR 60 against an indent dated 6-5-1989 and letter of credit dated 3-6-1989.The appellants declared a value of US $ 1050 PMT CIF. Having noticed two other importations of somewhat similar goods at US $ 1200 PMT CIF (Polystyrene resin GP-125 and Polystyrene G-144) the Customs felt that the price of the goods was not correctly declared. It was also the feeling of the Customs that High impact polystyrene was generally costlier than the general purpose polystyrene in the normal international price. Therefore, as recorded in the Assistant Collector's order, the assessable value according to the Customs had to be determined under Rule 11 (presumably of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988) read with Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The reason for it recorded by the Assistant Collector w...
Tag this Judgment!Chloride India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC389Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals involve the issue of classification of grids, connectors, straps & terminals manufactured by the appellants for use in electric storage batteries - the assessee's contention is that they fall under T.I. 68 while the Department has classified them under T.I.27A(5) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. As all the 3 appeals involve this issue, they are being heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. E/2989/87B1 - This is an appeal against the order-in-original dated 8-6-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta levying duty amounting to Rs. 86,23,173.90 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant is a company engaged, inter alia in the manufacture of electrical storage batteries falling under Tariff Item 31 of the First Schedule to the Act. In the manufacture of the said electric storage batteries, the appellant requires certain essential items such as, grids, conne...
Tag this Judgment!Horizon Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pan American World Airlines and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: 1991RLR404
P.K. Bahri, J. 1. I have heard the arguments for deciding the application for grant of interim injunction and, vide this order, I shall dispose of the said application. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from making any demand for payment of or from encashing or enforcing the bank guarantee No. 170 of 1988 dated August 26, 1988, issued by defendant No. 2 and restraining defendant No. 2-Canara Bank from making any payment to defendant No. 1 on the basis of the said bank guarantee. Similar relief is sought in this application till the disposal of the suit. 3. Defendant No. 1, Pan American World Airlines Inc., admittedly had appointed the plaintiff as a general sales agent initially for the territories of Jalandhar and Phagwara located in the State of Punjab as per agreement dated April 1, 1988. A bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 15,00,000 (fifteen lakhs only) dated August 26, 1988, was given by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 I...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Handicrafts
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR133(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the penal provisions of section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act are not attracted in this case ?' 2. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the advance tax which was actually paid was more than the tax demanded under section 210 of the Act and that the penalty was imposed only because the estimate was filed late by two days, and that this was only a technical default. It has come to the conclusion that, on the facts of this case, penalty proceedings should not have been initiated. 3. In our opinion, the said conclusion is a finding of fact and no question of law arises. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »