Delhi Court April 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.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT192TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Lakshmi Sugar & Oil Mills Limited had been granted rebate in terms of Notification No. 257/76-C.E., dated 30-9-1976 and No. 108/78-C.E., dated 28-4-1978 in respect of their excess production of sugar during the 1976-77 and 1977-78 seasons. Part of the said sugar had been reprocessed by them in December, 1977 and December, 1978 respectively. In the course of such reprocessing part of the sugar had been lost. Notice dated 15-1-1980 was issued to the appellants calling upon them to show cause why a sum of Rs. 24,687.26 paise should not be recovered from them being equivalent to rebate granted on the sugar lost in reprocessing as mentioned above. The appellants denied liability. The Assistant Collector under his order dated 19-12-1980 confirmed the demand. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 22-9-1983.This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri Y.N. Chopra, consultant for the appellants and S...
Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC104Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants M/s. Lakshmi Sugar & Oil Mills Limited had been granted rebate in terms of Notification No. 257/76-CE dated 30.9.1976 and No. 108/78-CE dated 28.4.1978 in respect of their excess production of sugar during the 1976-77 and 1977-78 seasons. Part of the said sugar had been reprocessed by them in December 1977 and December 1978 respectively. In the course of such reprocessing part of the sugar had been lost. Notice dated 15.1.1980 was issued to the appellants calling upon them to show cause why a sum of Rs. 24,687.26 paise should not be recovered from them being equivalent to rebate granted on the sugar lost in reprocessing as mentioned above. The appellants denied liability. The Assistant Collector under his order dated 19.12.1980 confirmed the demand. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 22.9.1983. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri Y.N. Chopra, consultant for the appellants and Shri K.C...
Mohd. Usman Biri Merchants Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC225Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the Order No. 181-CE/Appl/Alld/83 dated 24-5-1983 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi.It was observed that the matter has come up several times before the Bench from 8-5-1985 till date (a period of nearly six years) and right from this date adjournment after adjournment has been sought on one ground or the other; (And on some occasions the matter could not be heard simply because none had appeared or merely a telegram had been received requesting adjournment). Further, the appeal was itself dismissed for default on 6th February, 1986. Thereafter it appears that the appellant had filed a restoration application and even this application was dismissed for default on 23-12-1988.However an another miscellaneous application was filed and the appeal was ultimately restored on 19-1-1990; But the learned Advocate again started requesting for adjournment and the matter ultimately come up on 27-7-1990. At that time a question arose whether t...
MukimuddIn Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2903
ORDER1. This revision petition has arisen out of a common judgment dated 14th of August, 1989 of Shri J. P. Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, disposing of five appeals, upholding a composite judgment and order dated 5th of June, 1989 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in five cases convicting the petitioner u/S. 408, IPC but reducing the sentence from three years to two years rigorous imprisonment and maintaining the fine of Rs. 5,000/- to run concurrently in each case in respect of the years 1973 to 1977. 2. The petitioner was, at the relevant time, an employee of M/s. Ahmed and Co. (hereinafter referred to as the firm) which carried on poultry business at Juma Masjid, Delhi. He resigned from service and settled his account with the firm on 12th of October, 1977. Six years later, an FIR dated 30th of March, 1983 Ex. PW 4/G was registered at Police Station Juma Masjid, on the basis of information given in writing Ex. PW-3/A dated 12th of June, 1982 by the Manager of the firm, alle...
H.C. Raghubir Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT319
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The Challenge in this writ petition is to a bill of Rs. 2,50,000.00 issued by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. on account of telephone charges in respect of the period 31st May, 1988 to 31st March, 1989. There is also a challenge to the validity of Rule 443 of the Rules framed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. (2) The petitioner was allotted a temporary connection in July, 1986 of a Telephone bearing No. 604420. Between 1986 and 1988 the bills which were sent were paid but the petitioner, in June 1988, made a representation to the respondents against excessive bill. For the period from 1.4.1988 to 15th May, 1988 a bill for Rs. 28.166.00 had been received by the petitioner and in the representation dated 17th June, 1988 it was contended by the petitioner that the said bill was excessive and unreasonable. Payment was, however, made of the bill under protest. The petitioner thereafter also sought for and obtained meter readings. Ultimately, the petitioner received a b...
Sheo Raj Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT221; 1991RLR341
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Sheo Raj s/o Majlis Singh was convicted under Section 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for having sold adulterated buffalo milk. He was also convicted under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Act for having sold the buffalo milk without a license by a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 25th October, 1977. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate sentenced Sheo Raj to R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 2000.00 or in default to undergo further R.I. for six months for sale of adulterated milk. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default to undergo S.I. for six months for selling milk without license vide order dated 28th October, 1977 by the same Metropolitan Magistrate. (2) Sheo Raj challenged his conviction and sentenced by way of filing an appeal in the sessions Court. The appeal was disposed of by an Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 6th March 1979 upholding the convictio...
Bhim Sen Vs. Kusum Prasad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT458
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This petition under. Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed against three orders passed by the Director, exercising the powers of the Central Government, dated 6.6.75, 10.6.75 and 12.6.75. These orders were passed by the Director exercising the powers of revision under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954. The immediate dispute leading to the said revision was the execution of the lease deed of Shop No. 16, Nizammuddin West, New Delhi, in favor of Pappu Lal and Krishan Lal, sons of Late Lila Ram, on 31.10.1970. (2) Petitioner Bhim Sen and one Dayal Singh had represented to the Managing Officer that their names be included in the lease deed Along with Pappu Lal and Krishan Lal, as having contributed money for the purchase of the allotment rights under the Displaced Persons (Compensation Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. (3) One Shri Lila Krishan Chawla, claiming to be the attorney of Dayal Singh had informed the Managing Office...
Amarjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT649; 1991RLR261
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Amarjit Singh with a prayer that the order of detention dated 6th June, 1990 be quashed and the petitioner be released forthwith. (2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:- On 26th January, 1990 Amarjit Singh petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Dubai by Air India Flight and when he reached near the exit gate of the Customs Arrival Hall was intercepted by Customs Officer. An enquiry was made from, him by the Customs Officer as to whether he was carrying any contraband items like gold or wrist watch. He replied in the negative. A similar enquiry was again made from the petitioner in the presence of two independent witnesses when he repeated his place of not carrying any contraband. The baggage of the petitioner when checked was not found c...
Ashraf Ali Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT201; 1991(21)DRJ21
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on receipt of a secret information in the Crime Branch Office of Delhi Police on 1.5.1987, S L , Hari Singh organized a raiding parly consisting of Asi Jasbir Singh, Asi Ram Partap. Hc Kamal Singh, Hc Jamaludin, Constables Dbaramvir, Balbir Singh, Same Singh, Devi Bharan, Dalip Kumar, Prem Chand, Adesh Kumari under the supervision of Inspector Omvir Singh at about 5 a.m. No person from the public was included in the raiding party, as nobody showed his inclination to join the same despite request made by the police officers. Nakabandi was made at T-point at Lodhi Road and Dargah Nizamuddin road at about 7 am on the pointing out of the informer, the appellant Ashraf along with another person Nasiruddin were apprehended. Both of them were having one thela (bag) each in their hands. They were given an offer whether they would like to be searched before a gazetted officer or a magistrate but they refused. From the search of the...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Commercial Engineering and Body
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC555Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a condonation application filed in connection with the reference application submitted in respect of the Tribunal's order No.A/442/90-NRB dated 17-9-1990.2. The learned DR stated that the reference application was required to be filed within 60 days of the date of receipt of the order namely 28-10-1990. However it could not be filed within this tune, which expired on 26-12-1990, and was actually filed in the Tribunal on 7-1-1991. Hence he would request for condonation of delay of 12 days.3. In this connection he would like to draw attention to the facts mentioned in the COD application filed by the Collector, Indore.4. He would like to emphasise that the matter in this case was referred to the Commissioner, Review and Subsequently the Commissioner advised the Collector to file the application and the telex communication was received only on 31-12-1990 and soon thereafter the reference application was filed.5. He would also like to submit that the Collector was under the bel...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »