Delhi Court October 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.
Taj Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)(41)LC347Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s Taj Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Agra, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise Kanpur. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on the 17th day of October, 1991 Thereafter, a stay application, duly supported with an affidavit, was also presented in the Registry on the 8th day of January, 1991. The stay application was listed for hear, earlier and the Tribunal had disposed of the stay application vide Stay Order No. 129/9 A dated 2nd July, 1991, and had dispensed with the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 2,42,918.47 and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the condition of the applicants depositing Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The said stay order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the appellants before the Hon. Allahabad High Court, and the Allahabad High Court via Order dated 24th June, 1991, had set aside the order passed by the T...
Rotex Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT560TriDel
1. These are the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 48,04,619.00 demanded from applicants, M/s. Rotex Textile Mills (P) Ltd. and for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs. 10 lakh imposed on them and also for the waiver of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on applicant, Sh. N.K. Chakraborty, Managing Director of M/s.Rotex Textile Mills and of Rs. 10,000/- on applicant, Sh. Rajan Nair who is an employee of the above-said applicant firm by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill in his order dated 29-6-1991. Sh.Hidayatulla, Sr. Counsel, appeared for M/s. Rotex Textile Mills and Sh.N.K. Chakraborty and Ms. Rangaswamy for the applicant, Sh. Rajan Nair.Shri Hidayatulla, Sr. Counsel, submitted that the applications are not being pressed on the aspect of prima facie case, but that they would plead undue financial hardship to the applicants in making the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty demanded. In this regard, the Sr.Counsel referred to the extension of validity p...
H.B. Verma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ39Del
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. In this batch of seven writ petitions, the petitioners, who are engaged in the business of stone quarrying, have challenged the validity of the Notification dated September 27, 1985, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, under clause (a) of Section 3(1) read with clause (iii) of Sec. 4(1) and Sec. 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). By this notification the Central Government fixed minimum piece rate of wages of the employees doing the work of stone breaking or stone crushing at the rate of Rs. 71/- for a truck load of 150 cubic feet. The notification was limited to the size of the broken stone between 5 inches to 8 inches. The petitioners contended that the notification has not been issued in terms of the requirements of the Act and further that the same is discriminatory and vocative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and, thus, beyond the competence of the Central Government. 2. At the time when these writ...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Mahinder Mehta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT683
S.C. Jain, J.(1) HEARD. Admittedly, the respondent no. 1, Mahinder Mehta is in occupation of the suit premises. As per record he was enjoying the facility of electricity which was disconnected on 4.7.89. On his application moved u/Sec. 45(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Addl. Rent Controller directed the restoration of the electricity within one month. This order of the Addl. Rent Controller was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 26.8.91. (2) Aggrieved Suresh Chand petitioner has filed the present petition. His first contention is that the respondent is not a tenant under him. As per own admission the respondent became tenant in the suit premises under the brother of the petitioner. As there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent thereforee no order under Section 45(3) can be passed. He further stated that the respondent himself used the electricity and the meter got burnt and he did not disconnect his electricity. After app...
Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi Vs. M/S. S.R. Kishore and Co. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi174; ILR1992Delhi812
1. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,356.16 p. together with pendente lite and future interest.2. The plaintiff in the present case is a nationalised bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act (40) of 1980 with its head office at Harsha Bhavan, 'E' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. It has got one of its branches at Block'A', 30-33, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Shri S. C. Kapoor is the Senior Manager and one of the principal officers of the said branch. He is as such fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case. He also holds a power of attorney on behalf of the plaintiff bank and as such is competent to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suit. He has also been authorised vide resolution No. F. 17(7) dated 30 7-1983 to institute the instant suit. The defendant No. 1 on the other hand is a partnership firm, it deals in the wholesale and retail business of silk and cotton Sarees of diffe...
Wasudhir Foundation Vs. C. Lal and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT556
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Is Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure restricted or controlled by Order 7 rule 11 This is the question which has given birth to this order.(2) The facts need not detain me for long A bon sai view would do. The plaintiff has sought recovery of license fee for a period subsequent to the service of notice or revocation of the license. The defendant states that the plaintiff can lay no claim for license after the revocation of the license and that consequently the plaint discloses no cause of action. The plaintiff, instead of lacing the challenge, is seeking permission to amend the plaint. And, it is this prayer which has generated the heat, for, as per the defendant, the plaint has necessarily to be rejected, and Order 7 rule 11 can-not be defeated by taking recourse to Order 6 rule 17 and by amending the plaint. Two judgments of this court namely Edwin Bhave v. Hari Chand, 1982 (Del) 1. 697 and N. D. Khannu vs Hindustan Industrial Corporation, : AIR1981Del...
G.S. Rawat and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT218; 1992RLR66
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioners are working in the State Trading Corporation of India Limited hereinafter referred to as the Corporation in various capacities in the officers grade. The age of superannuation of the petitioners, we are informed, is 58 years. (2) The respondent Corporation in 1989 came out with a voluntary retirement scheme which could be availed of by employees who had put in ten years of service or had reached 40 years. Under the said scheme such eligible employees who seek voluntary retirement send an application in writing through proper channel to the Competent Authority. The scheme so formulated gave a right to the Corporation to accept or reject the application. Clause 4.2 of the scheme which is relevant in this regard is as follows :- '42The Competent authority may accept or reject the application of an employee for voluntary retirement, keeping in view the organisational requirements or any administrative reason and the decision of the Management shall be fin...
Prakash Pipes and Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT437TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against the orders of Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi rejecting the appeal on the ground that their claim for refund of duty of Rs. 2,60,693.75 under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) was not entertainable because it had not been established that the goods in question had been lost. The Asstt. Collector had treated the refund claim as one under Section 27 of the Act and had rejected it as time-barred. The present appeal to the Tribunal has been made on the ground that apart from the fact that the International Airport Authority staff at Delhi airport had not been able to locate the goods at the time when the Custom Authorities looked for them for physical examination, it was only on 20/21 December, 1990 that the International Airport Authority of India finally wrote to the appellants that the goods had not been traced. The relevant portion of this letter IGIA/Cargo/52-VT/1453/90/17938, dtd. 20/21 December, 1990, a photocopy of wh...
S.R.F. Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Del)160; 1992RLR1
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed under section 143(1) of the income-tax Act whereby certain adjustments have been carried out by the Income-tax Officer which have resulted in taxable income being computed. 2. The petitioner filed a return for the assessment year 1989-90 and disclosed a loss of Rs. 53,850. The Income-tax Officer then issued an intimation dated October 29, 1990, under section 143(1)(a) along with an Explanationn slip whereby the petitioner was informed that certain additions were made as a result of which the total income computed came to Rs. 2,81,500. The additions which were made were of five items. They were corpus donation of Rs. 1,62,500; retainership fee of Rs. 76,950; medicine expenses of Rs. 23,550; rent of Rs. 9,600 and maintenance expenses of Rs. 8,910. The sum of Rs. 1,62,500 was regarded by the petitioner as not taxable because it was a receipt towards corpus of the charitable trust. The other four items were claime...
Radhu Palace Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT14
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the bill dated 10th September 1991 requiring the petitioner to pay house tax and other taxes to talling Rs. 13.16.897.00 This bill has been sent to the petitioner on the assumption that the rateable value of the property in question, namely. Radhu Palace Commercial Complex is Rs. 6.57.140.00 . (2) The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. It is first stated that an assessment order has been made by the Joint Assessor & Collector on 9th September 1991 wherein the rateable value has been determined. The submission is that the rateable value so determined, which was Rs.6.17,150.00 with effect from 1st April 1982 and Rs. 5.42,000.00 with effect from 1st April 1987, is much less than the rateable value indicated in the impugned bill, The second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to vacancy remission as has been held by the Joint Assessor & Collector himself in an earlier ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »