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.
Sundeep Industries and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT427; 1991LC595(Delhi)
M.C. Jain, J.(1) Despite opportunity, counter has not been filed and it was ordered on April 3, 1991 that in case counter is not filed the will beheard without counter. (2) Rule D.B. (3) The petitioner imported components of electric typewriter and the consignment reached Icd on 27th September, 1985. The bill of entry was filed for clearance of goods. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 86 548.25 as duty on 27th September, 1985. However, the goods were ordered to be detained and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which a reply was filed. On 24th December, 1986, the Collector of Customs held the import unlawful and directed for confiscation of the goods. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 28th April, 1989. It was held that the import was lawful. Howver for the purpose of valuation, the matter was remanded back to the Collector. The Collector of Customs on 11th July, 1990 held that the val...
Masood Ahmed and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT418; II(1991)DMC154
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Masroor Ahmed appellant was married to Kaneez Fatima (deceased) in January, 1985 in accordance with Muslim rites and ceremonies. She remained well for about one year with her in-laws and resided at C-193, Welcome, Seelampur. Kaneez gave birth to a baby after one year of the marriage and on the 6th day of the birth of the child, there was a function called Chatti Chuni, the mother of Kaneez took to the house of Kaneez gold rings weighing 2 grams, silver paijebs weighing 2 tollas and 25 utencils, clothes etc. of the total value of Rs. 3,000.00 as per custom. She gave the articles to the appellant Jamani Begum, mother-in-law of Kaneez. Kaneez who was residing on the ground floor with her husband requisitioned the articles in her room, which annoyed Jamani Begum. Since that day, according to the prosecution, some quarrel started In the house. It is also urged that Masood Ahmed (father-in-law of the deceased) and Jamani Begum (m...
Om Parkash Srichand Kukreja Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT413
S.C. Jain, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner challenges the validity of the, detention order dated 31.8.1990, passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and receiving smuggled goods. (2) Pursuant to the aforesaid detention order the petitioner was detained and Kept in custody in the Central Jail Tihar on 17-9-1990. (3) On 6th October, 1990, while the petitioner was in detention, his advocate Shri Shirish Gupta wrote a letter to the Supdt. Jail enclosing therewith five copies of representation addressed to the Advisory Board, two copies for Central Government and the Administrator Delhi Administration. That letter was recei...
A.K. Gulati and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT590
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioners before us are Private Secretaries who are attached to the Judges of this Court. The claim in this writ petition is that they should be placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4500 instead of the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3500, which they are getting at present. (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that prior to the 4th Pay Commission report, the petitioners were in the pay-scale of Rs. 775-1200. According to the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Staff Seniority) Rules, 1971, the posts of Private Secretary are being regarded as equal status posts with those of Superintendent and Court Master. There is a joint seniority list of all the three categories which is maintained. The next higher post to which all of them are eligible for being considered for selection is that of Assistant Registrar. (3) In June, 1986, the 4th Pay Commission gave its recommendations. Two of the recommendation which are material are that Secretaries to the Government of India who were dr...
Delhi Lawn Tennis Association Vs. Shyam Minotra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT501
M.C. Jain, C.J. (1) This is an appeal directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th February. 1991. whereby the learned Single Judge confirmed the interim order made on 17.1.1991 and restrained the defendant appellant from holding extra ordinary general meeting in persuance to the notice dated 3/1/1991 and the learned Judge further restrained the Joint Secretary Mr. Shyam Minotra and the Treasurar Mr. Anil K. Khanna, respondent No. 4 from acting otherwise than the rules of the appellant Association during the pendency of the suit. The learned Judge further expressed that it would not be appropriate to declare the result of the voting at this stage on the first resolution in the notice dated 3.1.1991 regarding which the meeting was allowed to be held on 19.1.1991. (2) We may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal. (3) Delhi Lawn Tennis Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The President of the said Associ...
Indian Institute of Technology Vs. P.C. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT42
ORDER NO. 717/1981 Reference reply dated 9.2.1981 from Prof. P.C. Jain with reference to the show cause notice issued to him on 27 January 1981. The Board at its Eighty Sixth meeting held on 30th March, 1981, after considering carefully the reply of Prof. P.C. Jain with reference to the show cause notice bearing No. AO/Staff/O-343/81 dated 27th January, 1981 issued to him has arrived at the-conclusion that the Explanationn of Prof. P.C. Jain is not satisfactory and that no satisfactory cause is shown why the proposed penalty should not be imposed upon him. The Board thereforee, decided that the penalty of 'compulsory retirement' be imposed on Prof. P.C. Jain for the charge of 'conduct unbecoming of a Professor, thereby showing violation of letters and spirit of sub-para (a) of para 3-General of Schedule 'B' Conduct Rules.' In accordance with the above Board's decision Prof. P.C. Jain is retired compulsorily from the service of the Institute with effect from the afternoon of 31st March,...
M/S. Bhagwan Dass Bros. Vs. Ghulam Ahmed Dar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi22a
ORDER1. This order will dispose of these two applications. They have been filed by the defendant judgment debtor in the suit. The facts leading up to the filing of these two applications are in a very short compass. An arbitration award dt. 15-10-88 made by Shri V. D. Mishra, an Ex-Judge of this Court and a retired Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court was filed in this Court. Notices of filing of the award were served on the parties. Objections to the award were filed on behalf of the defendant/ applicant herein. These objections were registered as I.A. No. 2278 / 89.2. After the matter was ripe for hearing it was listed in Court on 15-3-90. No one appeared on that date on behalf of the objector and the matter was adjourned to 27-7-90. On 27-7-90 also none appeared in Court on behalf of the Objector. A perusal of the order sheet of that date shows that the matter was called out twice. Obviously, thereforee, the matter must have been passed over on the first call. I. A. No. ...
Sushila Goel and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC96; 1993ACJ263; 44(1991)DLT704
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This appeal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been filed against the order dated 28th February. 1987 passed by Shri H.P. Sharma, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1 whereby the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 86.400.00 with costs in favor of the petitioners-appellants and against the respondents, (2) The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that late Shri P.C. Goel, the deceased, who was holding the rank of Under-Secretary in Rajya Sabha Secretariat, on 17th July, 1974 at about 7.45 P.M., while going towards Lodhi Colony on left hand side of the road leading from Khan Market to Lodhi Colony, opposite to block No. 20, a bus bearing registration No. Dlp 5597. driven by respondent No. 1. came from behind at a very fast speed and banged into the scooter driven by the deceased. Since the bus was being driven rashly and negligently, the deceased fell down and sustained serious injuries as a result of which he succumbed to death in the...
United Decoratives (P) Ltd. Vs. Naipal Singh and State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)Crimes501; 44(1991)DLT508; 1991RLR336
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This revision is directed against an order dated 7.11.90 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by which he dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Section 65 of the Copy Right Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) Notice was not issued to the respondent because the Magistrate dismissed the complaint before the summoning of the respondent-accused. (3) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.The law is settled that a Magistrate has no inherent power to restore a complaint once he choses to dismiss the same in default. However, it was laid down in the case of Major Gen A.S. Gauraya and another v. S.N. Thakar and another : 1986CriLJ1074 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 'Unlike Section 151 Cpc, the Subordinate Criminal Courts have no inherent powers. In these circumstances, thereforee, the learned Magistrate had, absolutely no jurisdiction to recall the order dismissing the comp...
X.L. Plastics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT82TriDel
1. In this appeal the appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 18-3-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by which he has confirmed the order-in-original No. 7/Ref/86 dated 24-4-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara by which he had rejected the refund claim of the appellants of Rs. 12,601.43 P.2. The appellants are the manufacturer of Polyethylene bags with the aid of power. They filed a refund claim of Rs. 48,388.63 P. being the duty of excise paid by them on Polyethylene bags during the period 22-4-1982 to 16-7-1982 on the ground that - (1) with the issue of Notification No. 149/82-C.E., dated 22-4-1982, all non-specified articles of plastics, except the three mentioned in the said notification, became fully exempted from payment of duty. (2) with the enactment of Finance Bill, 1982, non-specified articles of plastics become classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and that they were continued to be exempted by virtue of Notificati...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »