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.
Skipper Towers (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT9; 1991RLR359
S.B. Wad, J. (1) M/S. Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner company, is a well known builder of Delhi. In C.W. 2371/89 the petitioners had taken in auction a commercial plot from the Dda in Jhandewalan Block, known as Commercial Tower in 1980. Till 1990 they had not made payment of over Rs. 8 crores to the DDA. Through the W.P. in this Court they secured the sanction of the building plan and permission to undertake the construction. It was ultimately found that they had not only not made the payment of over Rs. 8 crores for a decade but also violated the Agreement and the license Deed thoroughly. This Court dismissed the W.P. and permitted the Dda to enter the property after forfeiting the entire amount initially paid. The present W.P. is not only a repeat story by the same builder but worse. Here there is not only breach of Agreement and the license Deed but breach of solemn undertaking to this Court regarding payment. The petitioners are guilty of contempt of this Court. Dda Auctio...
Shambhu Nath Vs. Surinder Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT678; 1991(21)DRJ122
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) This is landlord's revision petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), assailing the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi passed on 19th July, 1985 whereby his petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was dismissed.(2) The petitioner had approached the Rent Controller with the aforesaid eviction petition filed on 23rd January, 1981 for order of eviction against the respondent Surinder Kumar Sharma, a tenant under him in respect to premises consisting of one room, one kitchen and a common bath room and latrine on the ground floor of premises bearing No. 2-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, of which the petitioner claims to be the owner/landlord. The petition was based on the plea that the petitioner had a large family consisting of himself, his wife, aged mother, six sons-two of whom were married, and a married daughter, living in Delhi and the accomodation which he had in his occ...
Prakash Thawani Vs. State (Through Central Bureau of Investigation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT643
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Prakash Thawani has filed this application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being released in anticipation of his arrest in case Fir No. Rc 12/90/SPL/DLI dated 26th October, 1990 under Sec. 120-B read with Secs. 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and substantive offence under Sec. 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 3rd August, 1990, 11 cartons and one wooden box containing air conditioner and one photo-copier were imported in India vide air-way bill No. 098-6110, 6846 by Air India Flight No. 738. This consignment was allegedly imported into India in the name of Embassy of Peru as official import claiming duty exemption. The Embassy of Peru have been importing their goods through M/s A. Andrews and Company (Mail Order) Ltd. 38-44, D'Aguilar Street, Hong Kong and M/s Sartaj Electronics, P. 01 Box 12655, Dubai(UAE) and the the petitioner Prakash Thawani has been the representative of the said companies...
Renuka Khurana and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT634; 1991(21)DRJ227; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)197
M.C. Jain, C.J. (1) Rule D.B.(2) The petitioners are the candidates of Nursery Teachers Training Part l.who have been given admission by the Institute of Child Education . after having undertaken admission test. They completed their education. The Director of Education vide his letter dated 24.1.91. informed the Principal. Institute of Child Education, respondent No. 4 that the present petitioners who are 26 in no. are not eligible for admission and Irregular admissions have been done in spite of registered letter No. 2785 dated 9.7.90 whereby respondent No. 4 was required to act as per the public notice regarding admission. The Principal was informed that the candidates should cot be permitted to take examination of 1991 unless the admissions are rectified according to the eligibility condition. In the advertisement issued by the Director, an eligibility condition 'was imposed that in the previous examination, the candidate should have obtained 50% marks in aggregate. It is only such ...
Nisar Ahmed Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT64
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This criminal Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenges the validity of the order of detention F.No. 5/36/89- Home (Police II) dated 20.9.89 passed under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa by the Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration and for release of the petitioner de,tenu forthwith. (2) The detailed circumstances in which the petitioner was arrested need not be mentioned for the disposal of this petition. (3) One of the grounds challenging the order of detention is that the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Rehana made a representation dated 25.9.90 to the President of India in which she requested that the detenu may be supplied certain documents which were referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention while passing the detention order. These documents are the flight manifesto dated 12.4.89 a complete copy of detenu's air ticket and order...
Sanjeev Khanna Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT40
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenges the validity of the order of detention dated 26.6.90 in respect of the petitioner passed by Sh. Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA. (2) One Meharban Singh was apprehended on 21.3.90 in front of his residence 13/1-A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. On search 118 gold biscuits were recovered from him. The petitioner had gone to meet him. Both of them were taken to the office of the Dri and their statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Later on, the statements were retracted, allegedly being recorded under torture, duress and mal-treatment. Despite his prosecution under the Customs Act the impugned order of detention was also passed against the petitioner. (3) Although the detention order has been challenged o...
Satish @ Bombaiya Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT561
S.C. Jain, J.(1) Facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 9.1.1988, at 7.30 a'm.,S.I. Ramesh Duct of New Delhi Railway Police Station along with Sho Jai Narain was on patrolling duty near the parcel gate Ajmeri Gate. Asi Budh Raj met them and he also joined them. In the meanwhile, a secret information was received that a boy who was wearing black pant and grey jarsy having charas for sale was sitting in the park near bus stand of route No. RL-7. On receipt of this information. S.I. organized a raiding party under the supervision of Sho and requested four or five persons to join the raiding party but none agreed. Ultimately, one public person Sat Pal resident of 1260 Sham Nagar, Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab) who happened to pass through the parcel gate was stopped and asked to join the raiding party who readily agreed. At 7.30 a m. the raiding party, reached the park near the bus stand and nabbed the appellant Satish from the park. He was informed that he was suspected to be in...
New India Assurance Co. Vs. Soma Rani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC655
R.L. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.1989 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short) by which it passed an award in the sum of Rs. 2,88,000 payable by the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited (Company for short) and respondents 7 and 8. It also directed the appellant being the insurer to deposit six cheques of Rs. 48,000 each with proportionate costs in the names of the to spective claimants within 45 days failing which, it was also made liable to pay interest at 10% per annum on the unpaid amount till realisation of the awarded amount. In the cross-objections, it is pleaded by respondents 1 to 6 that in case the plea of the appellant regarding limited liability is accepted, the balance of the awarded amount with interest should be ordered to be recovered from respondents 7 and 8 jointly and severally.2. The claim petition was filed by the legal representative respondents 1 to 6 of the late Jaswant Singh who the in road accid...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. N.J. Metal Screens Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC655Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute relates to the includibility of customer's profit at 10% in the assessable value of the goods processed on job work basis by the job worker.2. The facts relevant are as follows. M/s N.J. Metal Screens (hereinafter called as respondents) manufacture perforated sheets (T.I.68). They undertook perforation work on the material supplied by the customers: on recovery of job charges. The customers supplied raw material and after subjecting it to the process of manufacture returned the same to customers. The respondents paid duty on the value of raw material plus job charges. The show cause notice was issued proposing to recover differential duty on the ground that the respondents have not added the customer's profit on notional basis to the value on which duty was paid. The Asstt. Collector added 10% profit of the customers' and demanded a duty of Rs. 6,179.93. On Appeal, the Collector set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector. Hence, the department has come up in appeal bef...
Chemicoat Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1991
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC13
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda :- (a) demanding Central Excise duty Of Rs. 49,87,319.90 on metallised/lacquered PVC films manufactured and removed by the appellants during the period from 15-4-1983 to 2-1-1986 without possessing/obtaining Central Excise licence, without complying with the prescribed procedure and without payment of duty; (b) imposing a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on the appellants under Rule 173Q(1) for contravention of Rule 174 read with Section 6 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Rules 173C, 173F, read with Rule 9(1), 173G(2) read with Rule 52A and Rule 173 6(4) read with Rule 53 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules 1944; and (c) ordering confiscation of plant and machinery etc., belonging to the appellants and used in the manufacture, production storage and removal of the offending goods under Clause (a) to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 173Q and permitting redemption of the aforesaid plant and machinery on payment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »