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.
S. Kumar Vs. Bhagwant Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT195
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.11.1990 passed by Shri M.K.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi vide which the application of the petitioner-tenant under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed. (2) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent- landlord filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner-tenant on bonafide requirements under Section 1(4)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Summons were alleged to have been duly served on the petitioner tenant and since the petitioner-tenant did not put in appearance within the stipulated time and no application for leave to defend was filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, the order of eviction was passed by the Additional Rent Controller. (3) The petitioner-tenant has filed the application under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Secti...
Gopichand Shivhare and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi226; 44(1991)DLT475; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)295
Arun Kumar, J. (1) By this writ petition the petitioners have sought a declaration that the lease deed dated 23rd August 1923 does not cover their bungalow No. 65, Taj Road, Agra Cantonment and have prayed for quashing the notice dated 16th September 1970 whereby the lease with respect of the said bungalow was terminated and the petitioners were directed to deliver up to the Central Government the land comprised in the said demise together with all erections and which may be standing thereon payment of compensation for such erections and buildings only and a sum of Rs. 9084.00 was offered as compensation for the authorised erections standing on the land. The petitioners also sought a direction to the respondents to mutate in the name of the petitioners bungalow No. 65, Taj Road, Agra Cantt. showing them as the landlords/owners of the said bungalow and the land comprising there under.(2) The case of the petitioners as set out in the writ petition is that they are absolute owners of bung...
Collector of Customs Vs. Garware Nylons Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC150Tri(Delhi)
1. Arguing for the COD application, the learned DR for the Revenue states that the impugned order was communicated to the appellant-Collector on 12/9/1983. The time limit for filing the appeal, therefore, expired on 12/12/1983. The appeal has, however, been filed on 5th July 1984. There is, thus, a delay of 6 months and 23 days. He reiterates the grounds for condoning the delay as given in the COD application which states that the appeal could not be filed earlier within the time limit of 3 months as the current prices of the goods were to be ascertained before coming to a conclusion to prefer an appeal. The learned Solicitor, Dr. N.R. Kantawala, on the other hand says that the ground given is baseless because the question of ascertaining the current prices hardly arises in the appeal. In any case, he submitted that so much of delay, i.e. of 6 months and 23 days could not be taken for ascertainment of a certain small point. He, therefore, submits that the delay has not been explained ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. C.D.B. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC148Tri(Delhi)
These are the departmental appeals filed against the orders of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.1. The learned Counsel stated that these are modvat matters in which inputs were covered by the Deemed Credit order dated 7-4-1986 (as it stood prior to amendment) but the items were wholly exempted from duty under conditional notification and had been purchased from the market.This issue is squarely covered by a series of orders of the Tribunal the latest being A/538-542/90-NRB dated 20-12-1990.The learned JDR stated that these are covered matters. But he would also like to reiterate the Department's stand as reflected in the appeal memorandum; And would also like to draw attention to the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated 4-12-1989 passed in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6599 and others reported in 1990 (49) ELT 22 (P & H). It was his submission that the ratio of the judgment of the High Court was that there was no general rule that the burden ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Darbar Woollen Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT57TriDel
Detailed facts of the case are immaterial for the purpose of the present appeal save to state broader out-line. The respondents imported 40 bales declared to contain Wool Waste. However, on examination of the subject goods, it was noticed that 10 bales contained Wool Waste, as declared by the respondents, and the remaining 30 bales were found to contain Synthetic Waste which later on, after chemical test was found to be Acrylic Staple Fibre in the form of Silver pieces and crimp set tow. As a sequal thereof, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why the subject goods be not confiscated and why a penalty be not imposed. After usual adjudication proceedings, the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, found the charges proved and ordered for the confiscation of 30 bales giving an option to the respondents to redeem the same for home consumption on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 55,000/-. He also ordered for the confiscation of 10 b...
Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)(36)LC14Tri(Delhi)
1.1 On 29.4.1987, Central Excise Preventive party paid a surprise visit to the appellants' factory which is engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters falling under sub-headings 2201.11 and 2202.11 of the CET Act, 1985. The appellants were availing the exemption from payment of Central Excise duty leviable on the aerated waters for the first clearances of value of Rs. 15 lacs during the financial year 1986-87 in terms of notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.1986 (as amended). On subsequent clearances of the said commodity the appellants paid Central Excise duty leviable on the goods at the material time. As per explanation-I of the said notification, the expression 'value' means the value as determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 1.2 During the course of examination of the records maintained by the appellants, the preventive party observed that the appellants had realised a sum of Rs. 4/-...
Sarbjit Singh Vs. Vijay Karan, Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(20)DRJ390
M.L. Verma, J. (1) This petition challenges the 'preventive' detention of the petitioner and is directed against the order of detention dated 7.12,89 passed by respondent No. 1; under Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The impugned order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order The detention order was approved under Section 3 of the Act by the Administrator of Delhi on 18.12.89 in exercise of powers under Section 3(4) of the Act The order of detention was served on the petitioner on 13.3.90. This writ petition was filed as the representation of the petitioner to the Advisory Board under the Act failed. A writ in the nature of habeas corpus turn the production of the petitioner has been sought, it has been prayed in the petition that the order of detention be quashed. An order of release of the petitioner setting him at liberty is also soug...
Rajjab Ali and Sons and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT175
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the condition mentioned in para 90 of the Handbook of Procedure containing Export-Import Policy of the Union of India for the year 1988-89 with a further prayer that respondents be directed to issue a duplicate Customs copy of the additional license to the petitioner. (2) Petitioner no. 1 is a Government recognised Export House. Export Certificate is issued to an exporter who receives foreign exchange of not less than Rs 2 crores. A registered Export House becomes entitled to receive additional import license in lieu of exports made. An import and export policy is issued from year to year by the respondents. As per import-export policy issued by the respondent for the year 1988-91, the petitioner became entitled to an import license in lieu of exports made of the valuer Rs. 2,83,92,851.00 which was granted to the petitioner no, 1 on 28th July, 1988 for the total amount of Rs. 34,07,100.00 The additional license entit...
YasIn Bahlim Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT564
Arun B. Saharaya, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his detention in pursuance of an order dated 30th of January, 1990 made by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. It is prayed, inter alia, that a writ of habeas corpus be issued directing the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith. (2) In pursuance of the detention order, the petitioner was detained on 28th of April, 1990. The grounds of detention and the documents relied upon were served on him. On 6th of June 1990, he made a representation to the Central Government demanding certain documents and requesting for revocation of the or...
Amar Singh Vs. Santi Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT510
Sananda Bhandare, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 30.11.1990 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) dated 24.11.1990 was dismissed. (2) The brief facts of the case are as follows :- THE respondent landlady filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner in respect of a shop forming part of house no. 27 Ashok Park Extension, Rohtak Road, Delhi under Section 14(l)(a), (b), (c) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Summons were issued to the petitioner herein through ordinary process as well as by registered post. The summons sent by registered post came back with the remark that the addressee was not available despite repeated visits, however it is alleged that the summons sent through ordinary process were served on the son of the petitioner. Sin...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »