Delhi Court January 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 7 of about 118 results (0.020 seconds)Amrita Gopal Singh and ors. Vs. Valaiti Ram Jaishi Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT494
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', by the owner-landlords is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.5.1989 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby their eviction petition under section 14(i)(e) read with section 25B of the Act was dismissed on the short ground that the letting purpose was residential-cum-commercial. (2) The original eviction petition was filed by Shri Gopal Singh in 1982 Soon after filing of the petition the said Shri Gopal Singh died and the petition was amended wherein his legal representatives were also brought on record Paragraph 18(a) of the amended petition reads as under : 'That the premises in suit was let to the respondent for the residence and the petitioners who are the owners and landlord of the premises in suit bona-fide requires the same for occupation as residence for themselves and for members of their families dependent upon them and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Lamba Vs. Tarlok Singh Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT624
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act for short) by Madan Lal Lamba, tenant, for setting aside a judgment dated 18.4.1990 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Delhi, by which he granted an eviction order against him in favor of the respondent landlord under Section 14-C(2) of the Act in respect of suit premises, that is, the ground floor of property No. B-1/244, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The learned Rent Controller also directed that the order shall not be executable till the expiry of two months from the date of the order. (2) The facts are that the landlord had let out the suit premises to the petitioner herein in March, 1981 for residential purposes. The respondent was an employee of the Central Government in Ministry of defense working as office Superintendent in the office of Air Force Central Accounts Subroto Park, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi and was to retire with effect from 31.3.1990 and that he required ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC324Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the reasoning given by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay while discussing their appeal No. 939/89 BCH, dated 23-5-1989. Although they do not wish to contest the final result of the order in rejecting their claim for exemption from payment of Customs duty for their imported product "Baryta Coated Raw Base Paper" under Notification No. 55/86-Cus., dated 17-02-1986, Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Consultant for appellant has vehemently submitted that the goods in question having been classified under Chapter Heading 4810.11 and 4810.12 as printing and writing paper cannot for the purpose of exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 55/86-Cus., dated 17-02-1986 be rejected as not of printing and writing paper but imported for manufacturing photographic paper. The benefit of the said Notification can be denied only on the basis of the grammage of product being more than 180 gms., as the stipulated grammage for benefit fr...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Chemicals and Vs. Collector
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC225
1. Both appeals involve common issues and are hence disposed of by a common order. The classification of "Phenols" manufactured by the appellants is to be determined herein - whether it falls under heading No. 3003.20 of the CET1985 as a medicament (as claimed by the appellants) or under heading No. 3801.90 as a disinfectant (as held by the lower authorities). The appellants state that the product is manufactured under a drug licence issued by the Directorate of Drug Control, Govt. of West Bengal and has been certified as a "drug" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 - It is manufactured by mixing more than 2 constituents, namely, coal tar oil, resin, castor oil etc. & has prophylactic use and therefore has the essential characterstic of medicament within the meaning assigned to it under Note 2 to Chapter 30 of the CET 1985.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Banerjee, learned advocate and Shri L.N.Murthy, learned DR. (i) all medicines for internal or e...
Tag this Judgment!S. Anand Deep Singh Vs. Smt. Ranjit Kaur and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi87
ORDER1. This order will dispose of IAS 4224/89 and 8283/90. Plaintiff filed the 1 application under 0. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) along with a suit for partition of immovable properties, rendition of accounts as also for declaration against the defendants. The second application is moved by defendants 6, 7, 11 and 12 for consolidation the present suit with Suit No. 63 of 1975.2. In the plaint, the case is that plaintiff is the grandson of late S. Datar Singh (IS DS for short) being son of his eldest son. S. Maninder Singh (SMS for short). Defendant No. I Sint. Ranjit Kaur is the widow of Kanwar Mohinder Pal Singh (KMPS for short), a brother of his father SMS. Defendants 2 to 5 are the daughters of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 6 is the mother of the plaintiff while defendant No. 7 is the brother. Defendants 8 and 9 are the daughters of ISDS. Defendant No. 10 is the daughter of defendant No. 9 while defendants I I and 12 are si...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Ranjan Raja Ram Bagkar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT361; 1991(20)DRJ208
Malik, J.(1) This appeal against, acquittal is directed against the order dated 29th August 198l of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which she acquitted the respondent Ranjan Raja Ram Bagkar who was charged for having committed the murder of Sidak , Pal Singh Gill on board the ship known as M.V. Doha on the night of 9th June 1978. The deceased was serving as fourth officer on the ship while the respondent was also serving in the same ship as a crew member.(2) Stating in detail the facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent are as follows:- The respondent was a cadet on a ship named as M.V. Doha which was sailing from Qatar to Muscat on its way to the port of Free mantle, Australia. On the night intervening 9th and 10th Jane, 1978 between 10.30 P.M. and 11.30 P.M. he is alleged to have committed the murder to Sidak Pal Singh Gill son of Col. Prithi Pal Singh with an iron bar, on the deck of the ship and thrown him overboard in the sea. The deceased was then serving as fou...
Tag this Judgment!Acme Batteries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)LC355Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal has been preferred against the order of the Collector of Central Excise received on 30-10-1982. The appellant has been manufacturing Electric Storage Batteries and parts thereof since 1952. In 1955, the appellant obtained a Central Excise Licence for manufacturing Storage Batteries falling under Tariff Item 31 of the Central Excise Tariff, which was renewed from time to time. Electric Storage Batteries were initially under physical control. Later they came to be regulated by the Self Removal Procedure. The appellant had its Sales Depot at Kashmere Gate, Delhi and its factory at G.T. Road, Shahdara. At the Sales Depot at Kashmere Gate, the appellant had arrangement for reconditioning of Batteries. Duty paid Battery plates removed from the factory were used for the reconditioning of Batteries. On 10-11-1971, Centra! Excise officials visited a Shed near the Victory Service Station, G.T. Road, Shahdara, which was about 2 furlongs away from the factory and found 100 Ele...
Tag this Judgment!Rajdhani Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mangilal Bagri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas788(Delhi); 43(1991)DLT650
M.C. Jain, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of learned Company Judge dated 7th July 1989 whereby the learned Judge disposed of C.A. No. 543/89. The application was allowed and a direction was given that the concerned Assistant Registrar should supply the photo copies of the documents, as mentioned in the application at the cost of the petitioners. (2) A short question is involved in the present appeal as to whether the respondents in this appeal are entitled to the photo copy of documents which have already been inspected by them. We have been taken through the orders passed by the learned Company Judge on various applications and it is not necessary for us to refer to all of them but it is important to mention here that the learned Company Judge allowed the inspection of the documents and in fact the documents mentioned in the application have already been inspected. The question of supply arose at the stage of evidence, while recording the statement of petitioner No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!New Rajdhani Co-operative Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT335
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) First petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The services of the petitioner were taken over by the respondent-MCD on 11.7.89. The second respondent is constituent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which gave electric supply to the society in April, 1990 which led to filing of writ petition, it being C.W.P. No. 1448/90. During the course of hearing of that writ petition, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that there was a demand of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 93,067 81P as due from the society. This amount Thereafter the petitioner society paid and electric connection supply was restored Thereafter the second respondent-DESU raised another bill for Rs. 69,527.50P allegedly on the ground of late payment of the aforesaid amount and also raised a demand on account of reconnection charges. (2) When the heard the matter on 18th July. 1991. we wanted to know as to how an amount of Rs. 69,527.00 has been arrived ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(1)Crimes465; 43(1991)DLT305; 1991(20)DRJ404
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 praying for his being released after setting aside the order of detention dated 30-1-1990. (2) On 30-1-1990 the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed an order for the detention of Abdul Majid, petitioner here, to prevent from smuggling goods, preventing him from entering into, transporting, keeping smuggled goods and also from dealing with the smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in smuggled goods. This order was served on the petitioner on 12-2-1990 when the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon for his detention were so handed over to him. (3) Briefly stated the allegations have been that on 22-9-198...
Tag this Judgment!