Delhi Court March 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.
Sanjiv Chhabra Vs. Surjan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT219
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This revision is directed against an order dated 17.3.1990 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi by which he dismissed an application of petitioner-defend ant 2 moved under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with costs. The application was moved for restoration of his application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code. (2) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts in brief are that respondent I who is the plaintiff before the trial Court has filed a suit for possession against the petitioner and respondent 2. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte in the proceedings on 10.11.1986. He had appeared through counsel on 30.6.1986 and absented from the proceedings on 10.11.1986. Thereafter, he moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code on 20.3.89 i.e. after more than 2 years and 4 months for setting aside ex-parte order against him. That petition was also dismissed for non prosecution on 20.7.1989. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitt...
Shyam Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT159; 1991(21)DRJ1; 1991RLR270
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Shyam Lal petitioner was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act) by a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide judgment dated 20th January, 1978 on the ground that he sold boiled cow's milk which on analysis was found to be adulterated. He was sentenced to R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default to undergo further R.I. for two months vide order of even date by the metropolitan magistrate.(2) Conviction and sentence were challenged by Shyam Lal by way of filing an appeal, which was, however, dismissed by an AddI. Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28th August, 1978.(3) Still not satisfied from the conviction and sentence recorded by the two courts below. Shyam Lal bag filed this present petition.(4) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on 26th August, 1976 at about 12.45pm. the petitioner was found present at premises No. 3381, Chowk Singhara, Qut...
Kundan and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT192
S.B. Wad, J. (1) These are applications for bringing the legal heirs of deceased Kundal Lal, appellant, on record. Notice was issued to the respondents but no reply has been filed. The applications are allowed. The legal heirs be brought on record and the cause title be amended accordingly. The amended memo of parties be filed within one week. (2) Land measuring 28 bighas and 10 bids was in Village Ambarhal, belonging to the appellants, was acquired by Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 on 27.5.1967. The Collector made the Award for Rs. 500.00 per bigha. The Adj raised it to Rs. 540.00 per bigha. The appellant's claim is for Rs. 3,000.00 per bigha. (3) Admittedly the land of the appellants is an agricultural land. The appellants have relied upon the Sale Deed Ex. AW. 1/3, duly proved. This sale instance is for the sale of one bigha of land in the adjoining village for a sum of Rs. 2.500.00 per bigha. The land in question was purchased by a Cooperative Society. The learne...
S. Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT516
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner in this case is the lessee of land and building, known as No. 112 Baird Road, New Delhi under a perpetual lease dated 20.3.1937. It is stated by the petitioner that the said premises was under tenancy of Hakim Parmanand Taneja from 1.7.1947. The said tenant apparently constructed mezzanine measuring 13' x 10' in the godown of the above said premises. This mezzanine was an unauthorised construction within the meaning of clause 2(5) of the perpetual lease, which reads as under :- 'THE lessee will not without the previous consent in writing of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi or duly authorised officer as aforesaid erect or suffer to be erected on any part of the said demised premises any building other than and except the buildings erected thereon at the date of these presents.'(2) The petitioner received a notice dated 15.12.1971 from the respondents, notifying that upon inspection an unauthorised mezz...
Maharaj Jagat Singh Vs. Sawai Bhawani Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi475
Leila Seth, J. (1) This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 21st March, 1990 passed by Mr. Justice Charanjit Talwar dismissing an application under Order Xl rule 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff for appointment of a receiver. (2) The brief facts are that Swai Man Singh, Maharaja of Jaipur, died on 24th June, 1970 and respondent No. 1 succeeded him. But on 6th February, 1949, the late Maharaja had entered into an agreement with the Union of India. The said agreement provided that the Maharaja would be entitled to 'the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all the private properties' belonging to him and that 'succession according to law and custom, to the gaddi' and to 'the personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler' were guaranteed. These commitments and guarantees are 'contained in Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Covenant. (3) The main controversy pertaining to these articles is with regard to...
Collector of Customs Vs. Khandelwal Laboratories (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)(58)ELT150TriDel
1. The Collector (Appeals), Bombay by his order dated 29-1-1990 has allowed five appeals of the importers and allowed them the benefit of the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 45/79 for goods Cyclophosphamide for injection and tablets. The Revenue has preferred only two appeals against the common order of the Collector (Appeals).2. The main ground made out by the Revenue in this appeal is that during the material period of import from 28-2-1986 to.17-7-1986, Notification No. 45/79-Cus. was not applicable to bulk drugs and that the imported goods did not figure in the Notification No. 208/81-Cus.The Notification No. 382/86-Cus. amending Notification No. 45/79-Cus.was issued only on 18-7-1986 to grant exemption to the goods which were specified in Chapter 99. Hence, there was no notification available at the material time for grant of exemption to the imported goods.3. We have heard Shri Jayaraman, learned JDR for the Revenue and Shri D.N. Kohli, learned Consultant f...
Dany Dairy and Foods Engg. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: (1991)(34)LC547Tri(Delhi)
1. Shri H. P. Arora, the Id. advocate states that a duly of Rs. 5,27,046.99 has been demanded in the impugned order on the ground that the applicants had been collecting separately the erection commissioning and installation charges from their customers to whom me Dairy Machinery has been supplied, without informing the Department. On this main question, the learned advocate has submitted that there are a number of judgments of Tribunal on the point that erection, commissioning and installation charges are not to be included in the assessable value of the goods because they do not form part of the manufacturing activity. In his support, he relies on these two judgments 1. Braithwaite and Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta 1987 (11) ECR 701(Cegat SB-A) 2. Opposing this contention, the Id. DR Shri Satish Kumar relies on the findings in the impugned order. The Adjudicating Authority has relied on the following two judgments viz; 1. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. Patna (Wrongly mentioned a...
Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC281
1. The issue arising for determination in the present case is whether Solvent Ether conforming to Indian Pharmacopial (IP) Standards, manufactured by M/s. Alembic Chemicals, the appellants, would be eligible for the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 104/82 dated 28-2-1982 as amended by Notification No. 197/82 dated 22-6-1982.The lower authorities have held that it would not. If this finding is correct, the other issue to be determined is whether the demand for duty raised and confirmed against the appellants is sustainable wholly or partly on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. We have heard Shri Dushyant Dave, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, JDR, for the respondent-Collector.3. Notification No. 104/82, as amended by Notification 197/82, exempted, inter alia, the following goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon :- "All bulk drugs, medi...
R.K. Sharma Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT298
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice dated 29th January, 1990 issued by the respondent-institute to the petitioner wherein it is stated that the Council has decided, under Regulation l2(11) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, to refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for an inquiry. (2) It appears that there was a complaint made alleging professional misconduct against the petitioner. This complaint .was made to the Institute The Institute, in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Regulation 12 sent a copy of the complaint to the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed his written statement and comments with the Institute. The Council thereupon considered the written statement as well as the rejoinder of the complainant and then formed a prima facie opinion that the petitioner was guilty of professional and/or other misconduct and it thereupon decided to cause an inquiry to be made. Thereupon the impugned letter dat...
Afsar HussaIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT282
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By way of this application Afsar Husain petitioner has prayed for being released on bail in case R.C. No. 6 of 1989 Siu Xvi dated 23rd November, 1989 recorded by the C.BI. and also to consider the contempt application moved by him. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been a highhandedness on the part of Investigating Officer who has, in fact, falsely implicated the petitioner in this case and there was a demand of illegal gratification which could not be fulfillled by him and on this account the Investigating Officer managed to avoid compliance of the orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge and violating the clear directions had even taken the petitioner to Bombay there by committed contempt of Court. He has also submitted that there was, in fact, even a threat to the counsel for the petitioner not to appear for the petitioner in the proceedings. (3) Before considering these submissions it would, in my view be appropriate to give s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »