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.
Madan Lal Vs. R.K. Solanki
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT466
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Madan Lal petitioner has prayed for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 20th February, 1991 for the offence under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act (for short the Act) and since then he has been in custody. He has also submitted that the petitioner is no more required for investigation and complaint has already been filed. A prayer has, thereforee, been made for the release of the petitioner on bail. (3) This application has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. (4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (5) S.C. Khanna, Air Customs Officer, Igi Airport, New Delhi filed a complaint against the petitioner and nine others including Dina Nath Anand for the offences punishable under Sees. 135 and 136 of the Customs Act read with Sec. 120-B Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 of the Customs Act. It was, inter alia, stated in the complaint that in his s...
Sher Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1991
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi335
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. In pursuance to a notification dated November 13, 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 (hereinafter called the Act) appellant's land in Village Nimri was acquired. An award No. 1274 dated June 20, 1962 pertains to compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter called the Collector). The Collector divided the land into two categories having nomenclature as Block A and Block B, and fixed the market value of the land in Block A and Block B as under :Name of the BlockLand without gardenLand withgardenBlock ARs. 2500Rs. 3000Block BRs. 2000Rs. 2500Apart from the above categories there was some land which was being used either as a Path or water channels. That land measured about 11 bighas and 3 bids was and the Collector allowed Rs. 500/- per bigha for that kind of the land. Appellant Sher Singh has half share in the aforesaid land. Shiv Prasad and Sher Singh filed separate applications before the Collector on the ground that the c...
Anil Kumar Gandhi Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1703; 1991(3)Crimes11; 44(1991)DLT582
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) By this order I will dispose of Cr.M(M) 571/91. Anil Kumar Gandhi v. Narcotic Control Bureau & Ors. and Cr. M(M) 370/91, Kulwant Singh v. S.K. Wadhera I.O. Ncb as the common question for consideration in these petitions is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail on account of delay in the disposal of cases. (2) Anil Kumar Gandhi has prayed for being released on bail in a complaint under Sections, 21, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).(3) Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi, namely, N.P.Kaushik filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. New Delhi against the petitioner and others on 20th November, 1987. The case is now pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, after the same was committed. Petitioner was allowed interim bail for different periods vide different orders of this Court on account of il...
A.K. Doora Vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT665; (1992)IILLJ460Del
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) By this order, I propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 3406 of 1990, filed by the petitioner, Lt.Col. A.K.Dogra(retd.), whereby he seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside and quashing clause 2 of appointment letter dated 22.12.1988, issued in his favor. He also seeks to quash the letter dated 6.9.1990, .and office order No. 834/90 dated October, 1990, and he further seeks a declaration that the petitioner continues to remain in employment of the respondent Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. till his services are terminated in accordance with law. He also seeks an order of prohibition against the said respondent restraining the respondents from interfering or, in any manner, stopping the petitioner from the performance of his duties as Chief Manager (Civil) in the corporate office of the respondent. (2) The facts giving rise to this petition, as stated in the petition, are as under: (3) The petitioner states that the respondent c...
Raj Kishore Gupta Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT892TriDel
1. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Customs Act Case No. 2/90 and CM 2793/90 vide order dated the 1.1th February 1991, have directed the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question arising out of Tribunal's Order No. A/448 to 451/89-NRB dated 30-10-1989 to the Hon'ble High Court for its opinion : - "Whether the Tribunal could treat the statements of Umesh Kumar Aggarwal and Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal to have been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 considering that the said two persons were transferred from Police custody to Customs custody when their statements were recorded.2. On the 17th December 1981, 55 bars of gold and Indian currency of Rs. 5,31,850/- were seized by Vasant Vihar Police from two persons, namely, Umesh Kumar Aggarwal and Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal. The said goods and two persons were handed to the Customs Officers on the 18th December 1981 in custody under orders of the Court. Umesh Kumar Aggarwal in his statement recorded before the Customs O...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kemrock Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC453Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding classification of corrugated plastic roofing in the manufacture of which fibre glass mats, polyester resins and flexible plastic sheets are used. The appellant Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara is aggrieved by the order dated 9-4-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay classifying the goods under Item 68 CET as goods not elsewhere specified and setting aside the order dated 12-3-1985 of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division II, Vadodara classifying it under Item 15A(2) CET as articles of plastic. Heard Shri L.C. Chakraborty, learned Departmental Representative and Shri Willingdon Christian, learned Counsel for the respondents. The issue stands settled by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Geep Flashlight India v. Union of India reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) in which Supreme Court held that articles made of plastic means articles made wholly out of plastic and not articles made out o...
Consolidated Petrotech Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT81TriDel
1. M/s. Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd., formerly Gujarat Carbon Ltd., R.C. Dutt Road, Baroda, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Gujarat Carbon Ltd. had imported a consignment of one container declared to contain automatic form, fill and seal packaging machine valued at US $ 140,506.96 CIF vide Bill of Entry No. 2519/258 dated 1st October, 1987 and had sought its clearance under OGL and had also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 125/86.The consignment was examined in the docks twice and the second examination was on the request of the appellants. The examination report and the photographs received from the dock staff revealed that the machine was supplied with gas flushing system but had no vacuumising facility. While, therefore, the importer's claim for OGL was conceded, their request for application of Notification No. 125/86 for duty purposes could not be...
Metal Fabricks (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT70TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of oil cans, grease guns, barrel pumps and cycle chains, which were excisable under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants Company was incorporated in 1972 when the factory of Metal Fabriks (India) which had been in existence since 1949, was taken over by the appellants. After acquisition of the factory in 1972 the appellants augmented the plant and machinery installed in the factory by acquiring several other items of plant and machinery. The appellants were operating under an L-4 licence issued to them by the Central Excise Department, and they also held a SSI registration certificate issued to them by the Directorate of Industries, Punjab.During the material period, under Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3...
Harvatex Engg. and Processing Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD167(Delhi)
Assurance given under amenesty scheme that no information regarding return filed under this scheme would be used against assessee either in future or in past therefore, order passed by Commissioner by violating this assurance was not valid.The entire assessment was thrown open. There is no evidence from the order of the Commissioner that he was in possession of any information to say that the Income Tax Officer made in mistake in accepting the capital as properly explained as if there was a duty cast upon the Income Tax Officer to enquire into the public issue of every company as to the genuineness of the shareholders. One of the assurances given under the Amnesty Scheme was that information would not be used against the assessee in making the assessment either of future or of past. But in this case that information made use of by the Commissioner as can be seen from the tenor of his order against the assessee to set aside the assessment. This is against the assurance given by the Gov...
Kalra Iron Stores Vs. Faridabad Fabricators P. Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas337(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal J. 1. Though the petitioning creditors in the two winding-up petitions are different, the facts alleged in both the petitions are almost similar; the petitioners seek winding up of the same company, namely, Faridabad Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. This order will dispose of both the petitions. Briefly, the facts pleaded in C.P. No. 138 of 1988 are : The petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying all kinds of rods, angles, flats, etc. The registered office of the respondent-company is situate at 182, A. G. C. R. Enclave, I. P. Extension II. New Delhi. The petitioner entered into an agreement and understanding for supply of iron and steel material to the respondent company. The stipulations were that the payment would be made by the respondent company within 90 days of the receipt of the bills raised by the petitioner and that interest at 18 per cent. shall be charged on the amount of the bills which remain unpaid. The bills will be paid by account payee cheques only. In pu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »