Delhi Court December 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.
D. Sharan Vs. Indian Airlines and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT458
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The petitioner by means of this writ petition Is seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to cancel the rating and endorsement in respect of his Commercial Pilot's license No. 1504 held by him. The petitioner apprehended threat of such an action because of the Indian Airlines B-737 Aircraft, VT-EAI, on which he was co-pilot, having met with an accident at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 19th June, 1988. The petitioner also sought issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the report of the Inspector of Accidents assailing the same as being illegal, void and in violation of Rule 71 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and also rules of natural justice. (2) After the filing of the writ petition. It appears that respondent No. 2, Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on 25th May, 1989 actually passed an order disqualifying the petitioner permanently from obtaining any ratings and endorsement of any p...
NaraIn Singh Vs. Mahinder Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT148; 1992RLR52
S.C. Jain, J.(1) Facts giving rise to this civil contempt petition are that Narain Singh, petitioner herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the Addl. District Judge Delhi seeking injunction against the respondents Mahinder Singh and Rajinder Singh restraining them from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the piece of land measuring 2 bighas, 18 bids was in Khasra No. 6/19/2 situated in village Samaipur, Delhi. In that suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. Shri M.S. Rohilla, Addl. District Judge vide order dated 11.6.1990 granted ex parte injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner on the suit land, but on an application moved by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 Cpc, the Addl. District Judge, Mrs. Manju Goel, vide her detailed order dated 29.6.1990 vacated the stay order and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding, prima facie, tha...
Mahinder Singh and anr. Vs. Narinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT166
S.C. Jain, J.(1) Mahinder Singh and Rajinder Singh filed contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, against Narain Siagh. The dispute is with respect to the possession and title of a piece of land in Khasra No. 6/19/2 in village Samaipur. As per the petitioners, they are in possession of the suit land since 1981 and that respondent Narain Singh in conspiracy with the police officials and revenue authorities want to dispossess them from this piece of land illegally and without process of law. As per the contention of the petitioners the Court of the Addl. District Judge has held in its detailed judgment that the respondent Narain Singh has neither been in possession nor has title over the suit land and now he wants to take possession of the suit land by using force in an illegal manner in collusion with the police and revenue authorities. Respondent No. 1 contested this petition. (2) I have gone through the record and heard the Counsel for the parties. Civ...
Fancy Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT224; 1992(38)ECC103
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, an export house, filed this petition to issue a writ or direction to respondents to refund to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 18,48,000, it being the difference between the original price and actual price which the petitioner paid for Polyester Filament Yarn (PFY) goods which had been imported by the second respondent State Trading Corporation of India Limited (STC) as the Canalising Agency. In the alternative, 'the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ directing the respondents to refund' to it the amount of difference of price of Pfy calculated on the baas of Rs. 125 per kg. charged to other parties and Rs. 139.25 (approximately) charged to the.. petitioner and paid by it. The petitioner also wants interest on this amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. There are three respondents. Respondent No. 2, as noted' above, is the Stc and respondent No.. 3, is the State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India Ltd. This. respondent No. 3 has s...
Foremost Dairies Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT254; 1992(38)ECC130; 1992LC164(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) By this writ petition, the petitioner really seeks unjust enrichment to the extent of Rs. 1, 17, 01, 275.71. (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is the manufacturer of Skimmed Milk Powder. It sold Skimmed Milk Powder during the period 7th March, 1970 to 8th April, 1977 and on the said Powder it paid Excise Duty of Rs. 1, 17, 01, 275.71. Various assessments were made and no objection was taken by the Petitioner to the levy of Excise Duty. (3) On 9th April, 1977 a Notification was -issued whereby Excise Duty was specifically livable en Skimmed Milk Powder. The case of the petitioner is that one of its employees on 28th January. 1980 informed the petitioner that prior to 9th April, 1977 no Excise Duty on Skimmed Milk Powder was payable. Thereupon a notice of demand was sent by the petitioner on 21st March, 1980 followed by the filing of the present writ petition. (4) During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner amended the same and an affida...
Rajrani Sehgal Vs. Parshottam Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT263
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) The appellant Smt. Rajrani Sehgal is one of the daughters of deceased Shri Godar Mal, respondent No. I, Dr. Parshottam Lal, being the son. The said Shri Godar Mal died on 14th February, 1980 and shortly thereafter a petition for grant of probate/letter of administration under the provisions of Section 276/278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') was filed by respondent No. I on the basis of a will, dated 9th September, 1974 alleged to have been executed by his late father, bequeathing all his moveable and immoveable properties to him. All the daughters of the deceased including the present appellant were imp leaded as respondents; two of whom, namely appellant Smt. Rajrani and Smt. Shakuntla, respondent No. 5 in the petition filed objections to the grant of probate/letter of administration in favor Dr. Parshottam Lal. The other two daughters Smt. Shanti Devi and Savitri Devi and legal heirs of a pre-deceased daughter named Smt. Bimla Devi did n...
CypriaIn Duruaku Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT170
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) This order is to dispose of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dated 14/02/1990 passed by respondent No. 2 under Sec. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the Act) and also for quashing the declaration dated 8/03/1990 passed by Shri K. Prakash Anand,Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of India, respondent No. 3 and that the petitioner may be ordered to be released forthwith.(2) On 14/02/1990 Smt. Nisha Sahai Achutchan, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, and a specially empowered officer under Sec. 3(1) of the Act passed an order that the petitioner be defamed and kept in custody in the Dum Dum Central Jail, Calcutta with a view to preventing him from engaging in the possession and export from India of Narcotic Drugs.This ord...
Capt. D. Sharan Vs. Indian Airlines and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC634
Santosh Duggal, J.1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition is seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to cancel the rating and endorsement in respect of his commercial Pilot's license No. 1504 held by him. The petitioner apprehended threat of such an action because of the Indian Airlines B-737 Aircraft, VT-EAT, on which he was co-pilot, having met with an accident at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 19th June, 1988. The petitioner also sought issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the report of the Inspector of Accidents assailing the same as being illegal, void and in violation of Rule 71 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and also rules of natural justice.2. After the filing of the writ petition, it appears that respondent No. 2 Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on 25th May, 1989 actually passed an order disqualifying the petitioner permanently from obtaining any ratings and endorsement of any passe...
Mechanical Packing Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT421TriDel
1.1 The appellant company filed a classification list under protest for a product described as 'PTFE Moulded diaphragms pin or screw type in various sizes and shapes with rubber pad' falling under T.I. 68. The appellants' contention was that the product in question was manufactured from PTFE Resin - a synthetic Resin - on which additional duty under Section 3 of the CTA, 1975 was paid and the product was an article of plastic. It was also urged that the said diaphragms are manufactured directly by moulding process from PTFE Resin and pin or screw is inserted for holding the diaphragms in its position. Being an article of plastic on the above contentions, the appellants have submitted that it was exempted under Notification 182/82 dated 11-5-1982 since counter-vailing duty on the moulded resins was already paid. The original authority held the product as falling under Tariff Item 68 as not a plastic article inasmuch as inputs, namely pins or screws are attached to it while manufacturin...
Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT313TriDel
1. The appellants had imported a consignment of 50 pellets of Ankerhearth NB-70 from Austria which was assessed to duty under Chapter Heading 69.10/14 of the Customs Tariff as "Other articles including sanitary fixtures, tableware and domesticware". A claim for - reassessment under Chapter Heading 69.01/02 as refractory constructional material was rejected by the Deputy Collector of Customs on the ground that the goods were in lump form and, as such, they could not be said to be covered by Chapter Heading 69.01/02. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay rejected the appeal on the ground that in view of Note (1) to Chapter 69, that Chapter applied to ceramic products which have been fired after shaping, i.e. only to made up articles, and the goods, in question, being raw-materials, they were not classifiable under Heading 69.01/02.2. The appellants claim before us is that Ankerhearth NB-70 Ramming Mass imported by them is a refractory constructional material and is corre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »