Delhi Court November 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.
Subhash Chand Grover Vs. Charanjit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT188
Mahinder, Narain, J. (1) The only question which arises for consideration in this matter is, whether the ex parte decree for possession which was obtained by the respondent/decree-holder Charanjit Singh is executable or not. The ex parte decree was obtained by Charanjit Singh on 27.1.1973. (2) The petitioner again whom the ex parte decree was passed, sought to have the -ex parte decree set aside from the Court which passed it. That Court refused to set aside the ex parte decree Against the order of refusal to set aside the ex parte decree, an appeal was filed. This appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 22.1.1976. (3) From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner/Judgment debtor against whom the ex parte decree in a suit for possession, was passed, did not file any appeal against the ex parte decree. He only sought setting aside of the ex pane decree under Orders and Rules in which he had failed. (4) It is not disputed that the decree-holder had not made any application for ...
Surjit Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Nisith Kumar Banerjee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT116; 1992(22)DRJ291
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22nd March. 1991 passed by Shri S.S. Handa, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi whereby the application of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rules 10 & Ii read with Section 35A and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.(2) The grounds set out in that application by the petitioner defendant mainly are that the property of the suit is situated in Calcutta and is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in Calcutta and the Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and secondly the respondent-plaintiff had filed a similar suit No-444/74 in Calcutta which ultimately was dismissed in default on 1.10.1982 and the same has not been restored as yet and as such there is a complete bar for the institution of the present suit for the same cause of action under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(3) It may be noted here that after the summons w...
Collector of Customs Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT319TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred against the order-in-appeal No.S/49-798/84 CL dated 31-10-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The facts of the case in brief so far as material to decide the issue in this case is concerned that the appellants imported 4 cases of HCL (Hydrochloric Acid) Synthesis unit of combustion chambers. The importers sought amendment of the goods under the Heading 84.17(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Asstt. Collector classified the goods imported under the CTA Heading No. 68.01/16(1) rejecting the importers' claim for classification under Heading No. 84.13/84.17/84.59 on the ground that articles made of graphite could not be assessed under Chapter 84 of CTA, 1975. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal observing that the imported goods are parts of combustion chamber and therefore, they should have been under appropriate heading under which the combustion chamber itself is classifiable to Customs duty, and accordingly he o...
Art Pack Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT428TriDel
The applicants herein are licenced manufacturers of component parts of travel goods like plastic moulded suit cases and plastic moulded brief cases from the plastic raw materials falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and also component parts of the aforesaid travel goods from duty paid fabrics. They are small scale industrial unit and are registered with the Directorate of Small Scale Industries, Maharashtra and are availing of the benefit of the concessional rate of duty under 175/86-C.E., dated 1st March 1986. They also availed of the MOD VAT credit scheme and have filed declaration as required under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, showing the nature of inputs, heading numbers, under which the inputs are classified and also description of the final products and their sub-heading numbers.Price lists and classification lists, RT 12 returns and RG 23A Part II accounts have been filed with the Department ever since the applicants commenced the...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Semi Conductors Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)(41)LC306Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a stay application filed by the Department with reference to order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh, tit. 18.4.1991.2. The learned DR stated that in this case the respondents availed of the benefit of Notification 344/86 and 83/87 which prescribed two conditions viz. there should be a DGTD certificate and an officer not below the rank of Joint Director in the Department of Electronics should recommend the grant of concessional notification and both these conditions were not satisfied at the time of clearance of goods from the bonded warehouse. Hence the learned Collector (Appeals) has erred in granting the benefit and the Department prays for stay of the operation of the order.3. The learned Counsel for the respondents stated that they had produced both the certificates at the time of importation of goods and filing of...into the Bond & Bills of Entry. But at that time only nominal assessment was made at the standard rate and the...
Elephanta Oil and Vanaspati Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT250; 1994(73)ELT43(Del)
Sat Pal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) In the present writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum on the amount of Rs. l,09,60,000.00 from the date of deposit till the date of refund. (3) The facts of the case as briefly stated are that the petitioner -imported about 496l.50 MTs. inedible beef tallow of certain specifications of the value of Rs. 2,32,15,852.00 . (4) The Collector of Customs, Bombay (respondent No. 2) by his order or redemption dated 2831983 held that the said goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) ofthe Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, the Collector gave option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,09,60,000.00 . The petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount of redemption fine for the delivery of the goods. The petitioner, however, preferred an appeal under Section 129 of the Act before the Customs, Excise & Gold...
Jadish Chander Gulati Vs. Ram Chand Lakram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT660; 1991(21)DRJ319
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Shri Jagdish Chander Gulati and Smt. Bimla Rani Gulati, petitioners herein, agreed to purchase the house in dispute bearing No. 6/22, East Patel Nagar New Delhi from its owners Shri R.N. Sethi, B.N. Sethi and Smt. Kaushalaya Devi and an agreement to sell was duly executed on 13.1.78 and the sale consideration was settled at Rs- l,50,000.00 On payment of Rs. 75.000/ towards part of the sale consideration possession of the ground floor and barsati was handed over to them. The petitioners thus acquired the possession of the ground floor and barsati of these premises on 13.1.1978 The first floor remained in possession of the respondent Ram Chand Lakram Ralwani, who was the tenant under the previous owners. The sale deed was not executed in favor of the petitioners, which led them to file a suit for specific performance and this Court vide order dated 29.9.1983 passed a decree for specific performance in suit No. 838...
Hanuman Mangla Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT142
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays that the order of the Registrar appointing Administrator and superseding the society passed on 31st July, 1990 be quashed. The main ground on which the petitioner seeks quashing of the order is that the petitioner was not given a copy of the report on the basis of which show cause notice dated 18.12,1889 was issued. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that copy of the inquiry report was not given. However, it is stated that no inquiry was held under Section 55 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act (for short Act) and only an inspection was carried out under Section 54 of the Act and on the basis of the inspection the respondent Registrar decided to pass the impugned orders. (2) In our view, natural justice requires that before any order is passed either appointing an Administrator or superseding the society the report which is the basis of the order m...
Ram Shankar Dubey Vs. Sharda Nand Seva Sangh (Regd.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ89Del
S.C. Jain, J.1. Heard. This is a second appeal against the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 23.8.91 confirming the order of the Addl. Rent Controller evicting the petitioner from the suit premises under Section 14(1)(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner was employed by the respondent Society and his services were dispensed with on 31.12.1983. He has challenged his termination before the Labour Court. In the eviction petition before the Courts below the plea of the petitioner has been that he came into possession of these premises as a tenant much before joining the service with the respondent society and he was paying rent at the rate of Rs.20/-per month and thereforee, he is not liable to be evicted under Section 14(1)(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. As the petitioner has already challenged the order of termination before the Labour Court, he cannot be evicted from the suit premises.2. I have gone through the record. There is concurrent finding of both the Co...
Diamond Cement Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT435TriDel
1. The interpretation of Notification 124/87 dated 29-4-1987 relating to rate of duty on cement arises for determination herein.2. The appellants herein manufacture cement falling under sub-heading No. 2502.20 CET, 1985, in their factory at Imlai since 1983. The Clinker out of which cement is manufactured was produced in a factory at Narsingarh which commenced production on 11th April 1982. Duty was being paid at the rate of Rs. 185/- per metric tonne in terms of Notification 124/87 dated 29-4-1987. The appellants set up another clinker plant which commenced production in October 1988 and for the cement manufactured out of clinker from the 2nd Plant - Diamond II Plant, the appellants paid duty at the same concessional rate, during the period 1988-1989. After the 1989 budget, they paid concessional duty in terms of Notification 94/89 dated 1-3-1989. The Department has denied the benefit of exemption to cement manufactured out of clinker produced in the Diamond II Plant the Assistant Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »