Delhi Court February 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 Chander Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1541; 43(1991)DLT517; ILR1991Delhi429
Arun Kumar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 131 of 1989, 132 of 1989 and Crl.W.P. No. 395 of 1989. These cases are being taken up together since they involve common question of law and the material facts are also almost identical. So far as the L.P.As. are concerned, the detention orders under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act), were passed on 9th June 1988, which in Crl.W. 395/89, the petition order is dated 14th October 1988. In all the three cases the detention orders have not been served on the petitioners and the common point urged on their behalf is that the delay in execution/service of the detention order vitiates the same. The counsel urges that the delay in service of the detention order shows lack of seriousness/anxiety on the part of the detaining authority to detain and this according to counsel, throws doubts about the genuineness of t...
Sabu Thomas Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1587; 45(1991)DLT6
ORDER1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his detention by the impugned order dated 7th of February, 1990 passed by the Government of Kerala with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods, and dealing in smuggled goods, under sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts relevant for decision of this case fall in a narrow compass. In pursuance of the impugned order, the petitioner was arrested on 21st of February, 1990. On 28th of February, 1990, he sent identical representations to the Detaining Authority and also to the Central Government. The former, by a communication dated 24th of March 1990, supplied some of the demanded documents to the petitioner. The latter rejected it by a memorandum dated 29th of March, 1990. After the Advisory Board submitted its report, on 17th of Ap...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Janta Wire Works.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: 1991RLR249; [1991]81STC250(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1968-69, the Financial Commissioner has referred the following question of law to this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in holding that it was a case of under-assessment and was thus covered under section 11-A and that it was not a case in which revisional powers could be exercised by the learned Assistant Commissioner under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 ?' 2. The facts as set out in the statement of the case briefly are that the assessment for the year 1968-69 was framed by the assessing authority, Ward No. 7, vide his order dated 5th March, 1970. It appears that prior to this date, the business premises of the dealer had been visited by the Sales Tax Inspector (Special Investigation Branch) on 29th April, 1968, and one page of a diary on which amounts of Rs. 400 and Rs. 4,765.33 and the name of M. L. Aggarwal written the...
Shanti Swaroop Bhatia Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT149
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) The petitioner owns perpetual lease hold rights in a plot of land measuring 1920 sq. yds. situated at a distance of 1/2 mile from the junction of Ring Road and Mehrauli Road and runs a petrol filling cum service station on the said premises. The petitioner purchased the lease hold rights from S/Shri Satish Chand Gupta and Suresh Chand Gupta vide sale deed dated 6.8.1965 which was duly registered on 12th-August, 1965. This land originally formed part of a bigger area of land ad measuring about 24.1 acres which was given on perpetual lease by the Secretary of State for India in Council on 19th March 1924 in favor of one Sardar Ram Singh Kabli who in turn assigned his rights to S/Shri Satish Chand Gupta and Suresh Chand Gupta. A notification dated 13th November 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued notifying the intention to acquire an area of 34070 acres of land for purpose of planned development of Delhi. As per the master plan the land in ...
Commissioner of Sales-tax Vs. Janta Wire Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi222
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In respect of the assessment year 1968-69, the Financial Commissioner has referred the following question of law to this Court : 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Financial Commercial was justified in holding that it was a case of under assessment and was thus covered under section 11-A and that it was not a case in which revisional powers could be exercised by the learned Assistant Commissioner under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act ?'. (2) The facts as set out in the statement of the case briefly are that the assessment for the year 1968-69 was framed by the Assessing Authority, Ward No. 7, vide his order dated 5th March, 1970. It appears that prior to this date, the business premises of the dealer had been visited by the Sales-tax Inspector (Special Investigation Branch) on 29th April, 1968 and one page of a diary on which amounts of Rs. 400 and Rs 4765.33 and the name of M. L. Aggarwal written thereon was fo...
Tajesh Srivastava Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: I(1991)ACC507
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.1. The petitioner was found guilty of an offence under Section 279/337 I.P.C. as also under Section 304-A I.P.C. and was imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. I may note that the trial Court by its order dated 23rd of March, 1979 accepted the proposition that the petitioner is entitled to probation but did not grant it as it felt that it will amount to subjecting him to a restraint for some years. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed this order by its order dated 24th of August, 1979.2. The petitioner is challenging the legality and the propriety of the sentence as according to him any fair evaluation of the evidence recorded in this case would prove that the petitioner is not responsible for any rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of Nihal Chand deceased who was involved in this accident. In fact, Mr. Lai's attempt throughout his arguments was that the prosecution evidence particularly of P.W.1. Mr. Bhatia who is the star witness i...
Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC280Tri(Delhi)
1. We heard these four appeals together as they emanate from a common impugned order and involve common issues.2. The appellants, holders of a Central Excise Licence manufacture "cutting tools" falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item No. ISA of the Central Excise Tariff. They submitted a Price List in Part I to be effective from 1-10-1975 in respect of the cutting tools claiming certain abatements for deduction from the declared price. The appellants thereafter approached the Calcutta High Court and ultimately on 21-8-1986, the High Court passed an order directing the Excise Authorities to make assessment in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court Bombay Tyres International [1983 (14) ELT 1896,1984 (17) ELT 329], Godfrey Philips India Ltd. [1985 (22) ELT 306], Moped India Ltd. [1986 (23) ELT 8] as also any other decision given or to be given by the Supreme Court. The Asstt. Collector thereafter adjudicated the matter, allowing only the abatement of the difference betwee...
Sri Ram Chemicals Complex Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1992)(38)LC270Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an application for rectification of certain typographical mistakes which have occurred in the copy of Order No. E/23/91-D dated 14.1.1991. The mistakes are as follows: (a) In paragraph 2 of the order referring to the value of plant and machinery word 'crores' figures instead of 'lakhs'. (b) In the same paragraph, the date of the adjudication order has been wrongly typed as 8.1.1982 instead of 8.11.1982.2. We have considered the application and perused the final order. It is evident that these two typing mistakes have occurred in the order.Consequently, we order as follows: i) In paragraph 2 of the final order, the words 'Rs. 10 lakhs' is to be substituted for the words "Rs. 10 crores'. ii) In the same paragraph, the date of the adjudication order is to read as 8.11.1982 instead of 8.1.1982 found therein....
Collector of Customs Vs. Electrotech
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC90
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.The said appeal was received in the Registry on 3rd September, 1984. In column No. 3 of the appeal memo, the date of communication has been mentioned as 2nd June, 1984. Collector (Appeals) had disposed of two appeals by a common order. Thereafter, a supplementary appeal was filed by the appellant and the supplementary appeal was received on llth September, 1990. An application for condonation of delay was also filed.2. Shri M.K. Sohal, the learned JDR has appeared on behalf of the appellant and stated that the original appeal was filed within time and delay in the filing of the supplementary appeal be condoned as there is no negligence on the part of the appellant.3. Shri Suman J. Khaitan, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent. He had opposed the. condonation of delay.4. After hearing both the sides, we were satisfied that the appellant wa...
Collector of Customs Vs. Shri Rama Machinery Corpn. Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC20Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.2. The brief facts of the case are as under; M/s. Shri Rama Machinery Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Madras imported m.s. scrap consisting of used steel rails under cover of Bill of Entry C. No. 588, dated 20-01-1983.The goods were assessed to duty under Item 73.16 (1) CTA and c.v. duty at the rate of Rs. 330/- per metric ton. The importers filed a claim for refund of duty on the ground that additional duty is leviable only on manufactured goods and the auxiliary duty is applicable in terms of Notification No. 107/77. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector (Refunds). Aggrieved by this order the importers filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals). Collector (Appeals) held that since the goods imported are used and second-hand scrap no c.v. duty is leviable on the goods.3. In their appeal, the revenue has contested the order of the Collector (Appeals) on the following ground...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »