Delhi Court May 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.
Kalawati @ Kamla Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT388
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) In exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the Act) Shri R. Badri Nath, Secretary (Home) passed an order of detention of Smt. Kamlawati @ Kamla wife of Shri Kallu Ram with a view to preventing her from indulging in selling and possessing of narcotic drugs. (2) It was also observed that even after the registration of 7 cases under the Act she could not be prevented from selling narcotic drugs. This order was served upon the petitioner on 27th January, 1990 and simultaneously the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon were supplied to her part with the order of detention. (3) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the detention order dated 26th January, 1990 confirmed on 9th April, 1990, with a prayer that she may be ordered to be released. (4) I have ...
Wood Paper Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC543Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have challenged the order-in original dated 4-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda confirming the show cause notice dated 26-12-1985 received by the appellants on 30-12-1985 and issued by the Superintendent, Law Branch-I, Central Excise & Customs Hdqrs., Baroda. The show cause notice has been despatched on 27-12-1985 by registered post A.D. as evident from the extract of the Despatch Register produced by the Department on the direction given by this Bench.2. The short preliminary question on which the arguments were heard, was the validity and legality of the show cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise after the amendment of the Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Central Excises and Salt (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Act No. 79 of 1985) by which the show cause notice is to be issued by the Collector if and when proviso to Section 11A for extended period of 5 years is invoked.3. The facts of this case are...
Larsen and Tubro Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC78
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry case No. 2759D dated 13-3-1981 for the clearance of goods declared as 'Components of Cement Making Machinery'. In the invoice the goods in question were described as 'Load Cells for Raw Mill and Kiln Department'. The goods were assessed to duty under I.C.T. Heading 84.20(2) as parts of weighing machinery' @ 40% + 5% (Auxiliary). The goods were also subjected to C.V. duty of 15.75% (15% + 5%) under C.E.T. Item No. 45. Though in the case records, the copy of the appellants' refund claim is not available it appears from their appeal memorandum filed before the Tribunal that after obtaining a certificate from the DGTD to the effect that the parts in question were meant for the manufacture of cement machinery falling under Heading 84.56 of C.T.A. 75 and were eligible for concessional rate of customs duty in terms of Customs N...
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC342Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the order of the Assistant Collector demanding duty of Rs. 7,60,821.84 on 483.8469 metric tonnes of printing and writing paper made out of bagasse during the period from 15-9-1985 to 14-3-1986 and cleared by wrongly availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 191/80 dated 8-12-1980.2. The appellants are the manufacturers of a wide variety of paper including printing and writing paper containing not less than 75% by weight of pulp made from bagasse. They had been availing of the benefit of Notification 191/80 under which printing and writing paper falling under TI 17(1) of the erstwhile first Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 containing not less than 75% by weight of pulp made from bagasse was exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The appellants had filed classification lists for this purpose which were approved on 23-8-1984. A show cause notice dated 18-9-...
Badri Pershad Vs. Harish Chander and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(21)DRJ41; 1991RLR382
M.L. Verma, J. (1) This is an application under order 1 rule 10 Civil Procedure Code . filed one smt. shammi (for short the applicant) seeking to be imploded as a defendant in the above suit for partition.(2) The above suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of the property being the lease hold rights in plot No. Ii, Block 3C in Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, and the super-structure made thereon commonly known as 3-C/11, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. Defendants 1 & 2, who are brother of the plaintiff, have been imp leaded as parties to the suit. In paragraph 2 & 3 of the plaintiff it has been pleaded that in October 1974, an oral partition of the said house property was effected between the parties. The division following the partition and the portions allotted to the plaintiffs and defendants 1 & 2 pursuant to that partition have been set out in sub-paras (a), (b).(c) and (d) of paragraph 2 and sub-paragraph (i), (ii)and (iii) of paragraph 3 of the plaint....
Shiv Charan Gupta Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD567(Delhi)
1. As all these appeals give rise to some common issues, they were heard together and for the sake of convenience, are being disposed of by a common order.2. In all these appeals the assessees were represented by Shri G.C.Sharma, Shri Mukul Gupta and Shri Wazir Singh advocates. The department was represented by Shri Subhash Kumar, Sr. Departmental Representative.3. We shall first lake up the appeals filed by Shri Shiv Charan Gupta.In these appeals an application has been moved by the assessee, seeking leave to raise the following additional ground:- That the principles of natural justice having been totally violated by the Income-tax Officer in making the impugned additions to the total income of the appellant and the appellant having not been confronted with any material justifying the said impugned additions, the entire additions are liable to be deleted from the assessment being null and void ab initio.4. We have heard learned authorised representatives of the parties. In the groun...
General Engineers Corpn. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD110(Delhi)
1. These are appeals by the assessee against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) for assessment years 1982-83 and 1984-85.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.3. The assessee's returns of income for the two years under consideration were due to be filed on 30-6-1982 and 30-6-1984 respectively but they were filed on 29-3-1985 and 28-6-1985 respectively. Both the returns were thus, delayed and penalty proceedings were initiated.4. The assessee's explanation for the delay was that Shri. S.K. Saboo, Chartered Accountant, who is a member of the family of the partners of the assessee firm, was dealing with the tax matters of the assessee and since he had been ill for a long time the returns could not be filed in time. This explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Officer who levied a penalty of Rs. 11,968 for assessment year 1982-83 and of Rs. 6,358 for assessment year 19...
Amrit NaraIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Del)34; [1991]190ITR644(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. In respect of the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the petitioner had filed returns of income late by 7 months and 20 months respectively. In addition to the levy of income-tax, the assessing authority levied penalty and interest for the late filing of the return and for non-payment of advance tax. 2. It appears that the petitioner filed an application to the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 273A section waiver of penalty and also waiver of interest under section 139(8) and 215. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax, vide impugned order dated November 6, 1990, came to the conclusion that the conditions specified in section 273A which would give jurisdiction to reduce or waive penalty and interest existed. It was held that though the return were filed late, they have been filed voluntarily prior to the issuance of notice under section 139(2) or 148. It was also held that the petitioner had made full and true disclosures and that it co-operated with the inquir...
Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Batra Contractors and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)ARBLR150(Delhi); 44(1991)DLT574
M.C. Jain, C.J.(1) This appeal arises from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Suit no. 975-A/90 dated 16th August, 1990 whereby the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was allowed and the subject disputes were referred to arbitration in terms of arbitration agreement between the parties. The learned Judge also directed the Managing Director of the appellant Corporation to appoint the Arbitrator within 4 weeks who shall give his Award in accordance with law. (2) We have heard Shri Manvendra Verma, counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Singh, counsel for the respondents. (3) The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the four disputes can be referred to arbitration. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in respect of dispute No. 1 .clause 10C of the Agreement is attracted or not would be examined by the Arbitrator. In respect of the other three disputes as well, the learned Judge also expressed, as to whether ...
Subramanian Swamy and anr. Vs. S.C. Gudimani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT331
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) Petitioners filed an application, under Order 13 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, thereby, seeking permission of the trial Court, to produce various documents, on the grounds, mentioned therein.(2) Vide order dated July 3, 1989, learned Trial Court allowed the pro- duction of two documents, but in respect of others, the application was dis- missed. Petitioners filed an application,for review of the order. Same was dismissed, vide order dated August 8, 1989, on the ground, that it was time barred. (3) The present revision petition is directed against these orders. (4) Briefly stated, the facts are as under :- Petitioners filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,400.00 , against respondent on account of arrears of rent, from November 21, 1981 to September 30, 1983,-at the rate of Rs. l,700.00 per mensem, electricity charges, damages etc, in March, 1984. (5) According to petitioners, on or about July 4, 1977, they let out the premises No. N-226, Greater Kailash part I, New De...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »