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.
Parmeshwari Das Shanti Perkash Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: 1991RLR408
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) [ED. facts : Petitioner was given a construction contract. It was completed on 10.3.76. He accepted final bill under protest mentioning 2 Claims of total value of about Rs. 45 thousand. Petitioner then asked for reference to arbitrator and filed 5 claims of total value of more than Rs. 21 lakh. Arbitrator in his award did not give finding on each disputed question but merely awarded certain sums against different claims. Award was of more than Rs. 5 lakh. Govt. Challenged the award of the ground of judicial misconduct]. After detailing facts. Judgment is :(2) Counsel for the Union of India has argued that the arbitrator has committed judicial misconduct in not giving his findings on the various disputes raised before him it respect of various claims and he had only awarded the particular amounts against the claims whereas condition 65 of the General Conditions of Contract clearly provided that the arbitrator in addition to awarding the sums in respect of the claims sh...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT793TriDel
1. These three appeals involve consideration of a common question viz.interpretation of Notification 115/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 as amended by Notification 122/75 dated 5-5-1975 and were heard together. They are therefore being disposed of by this common order.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the two respondents manufacture, inter alia, oleoresins falling under Heading 1301.90. These products are manufactured from items like chillies, ginger, cardamom, pepper, turmeric etc. by the solvent extraction method. The respondents in the first two appeals, claimed refund of duties paid on oleoresins in terms of Notification 115/75 while the respondents in the third appeal were asked to take out a Central Excise because for the manufacture of these goods which were held to be classifiable under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff - an order which was set aside by Collector (Appeals). On rejection of their refund claim, they appealed to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)...
Collector of Customs Vs. Saurashtra Steel Industry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC459Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals have been filed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot against the common order passed in 6 appeals by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Since the issue is common in all the appeals, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that six consignments of melting scrap of iron and steel were imported by the respondents at Bhavnagar. In each case as per the out-turn report endorsed by the port officer on the reverse of the bill of entry the full quantity as specified in bill of lading was cleared by the importers. Melting scrap of iron and steel was exempted from the basic customs duty under Notification No. 155/77-Cus., dated 15-7-1977 and from auxiliary duty in terms of notifications issued from time to time. In each case in terms of the conditions of the notifications, prior to the clearance of the goods the importers filed bonds with the Asstt. Collector undertaking to produce an end-use certifica...
Singh Alloys and Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT782TriDel
The appellant has a scrap based factory and manufactured steel ingots under the erstwhile Tariff Item 26 CET with the aid of electric furnace out of duty paid unused steel melting scrap in admixture with other materials as laid down in Notification No. 144/75-C.E., dated 7-6-1975. The other materials included, inter alia, bazar scrap, i.e. old and used iron and steel scrap. Apart from availing the benefit of this aforesaid Notification, he also availed of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 237/75-C.E., dated 9-12-1975. The appellant was accorded approval to manufacture steel ingots from steel melting scrap or steel scrap brought under Rule 56A subject to the observance of the procedure detailed in Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.1.1 Later on after scrutiny of the records of the firm by the Central Excise Officers, it was alleged inter alia by the Department, which is in dispute now before the Tribunal, as follows :- (i) The appellant has evaded duty on 1047.97...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT441; 1991RLR318
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed after petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1&2 Cpc was dismissed and the appeal filed against that order was also dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi. Although copy of the plaint in the suit is not available but a reference to the appellate order court makes it clear that the petitioner filed the civil suit contending that he was in occupation of property bearing No. 446, Gali Rajan Kalan, Panja Sharif, Mori Gate, Delhi as a tenant, and that officials of the Municipal Corporation came and threatened to demolish the premises and also to seal them on the ground of there being unauthorised construction. The suit obviously seeks a prohibitory injunction against the Municipal Corporation. Issuance of temporary injunction by means of separate application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was sought in respect to the apprehended action, pending dis...
K.M. Singh Vs. Secretary, Association of Indian Universities and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT735
P.N. Nag, J. (1) In this revision petition, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the order dated 30th January, 1989 passed by Shri S. C. Mittal, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner wherein he has prayed for cancelling the order dated 14th October, 1988 vide which a part of the claim of the suit of the plaintiff covered by issue No. 1 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.(2) The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner, who was the President of defendant No. 1, was managing its affairs and according to him his resignation dated 5-4-1976 was illegal and unenforceable and that he was entitled to continue in the service of defendant No. 1 and all consequential benefits, including recovery of Rs. 19,500. Out of the pleadings of the parties, as many as 10 issues were framed. However issue No. 1, which is relevant to determine the point ill controversy between the parties in the prese...
Rukan Singh Tewatia Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT311
M.C. Jain, J. (1) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the decision of the Government dated 7/04/1991, cancelling the nomination of the petitioner as the Chairman of the Indian Sugarcane Development Council, and nominating the second respondent as Chairman of the said Council in his place. A further direction is sought that the respondent No. 1 be restrained from implementing the said order or from taking any steps for implementation thereof. By are solution dated 30th January, 1991, the Ind Indian Sugarscane Development Council was reconstituted. Earlier, it was constituted by the Resolution dated 7/01/1987. Clause 5 of that Resolution reads as under :- '5.The Council will continue to function until it is abolished by a resolution of the Government. The term of the Chairman and other non-official members of the Council would be three years from the date on which they are nominated on the Council unless this period is curtailed ...
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR357]; (1994)IIILLJ621Del
M.C, Jain C.J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-management seeks to quash the order, dated 21 April 1989, whereby the petitioner's application, dated 6 September 1985, for holding fresh enquiry was dismissed and the order, dated 20 January 1990, whereby the petitioner's review petition in respect of the order, dated 21 April, 1989, was dismissed. ThT following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court by the Government. 'Whether the dismissal from service of Sri Mohd. Saleem Ansari is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect ?' 2. After necessary pleadings were submitted by the parties, four issues were framed. Issue (4) was a preliminary issue which was to the effect'? 'Whether the domestic enquiry was unfair, improper and in violation of principles of natural justice If so, to what effect?' 3. Parties led evidence on the issue and evidence was completed and thereafter before finding on issue (4) was recorded, an appli...
Torrison Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC41
1. This is an appeal arising out of an order of the Collector holding that the appellants are liable to pay duty on the main springs by including the cost of bushes. The appellants manufacture inter alia unspecified motor vehicle parts like spring leaves falling under Tariff Item 68. The main spring plate in the assembly of the spring leaves is provided with an 'eye' at their ends to facilitate the fixing of bushes. The bushes are not manufactured by the appellants and the sale of these spring leaves without the bush is also a common feature. In other words, bush is not an essential part of spring leaves. Since the spring leaves are manufactured and supplied without bushes by the appellants, they were invoicing the sale of spring leaves independently of the supply of any other material. They have also not taken out licence for the manufacture of bushes, and they were obtaining them in the open market and sell them separately, invoicing them separately at the request of the purchasers....
A. Mohammed Illyas Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2425
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. He has also challenged the order confirming the detention of the petitioner and directing that he will be detained for one year from 18-5-90. 2. In brief, the facts which are, apparent on the record are that Customs Intelligence & Investigation Unit, Kochin noticed the petitioner traveling on a scooter No. KEV 7589 near Chadayamangalam Quilon District. He was brought to CPI Unit, Trivandrum, on the belief that he was carrying gold and smuggled goods and foreign currencies. On search made by the customs officials, Rs. 88060/- were recovered from him. Besides the Indian Currency, foreign currencies were also found in his possession. On the search of the house of the petitioner, Rs. 55,000/- and a pocket diary were seized. In the statement made by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »