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.
Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT76
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) These two appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment dated July 31, 1968, of the learned Additional District Judge, on a reference under Section 18 of the Act against two awards Nos. 1238 and 1369 of the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, respecting acquisition of land of the appellant in village Jogabai. Quite a large track of land was acquired of this village under Notification dated November 13, 1959 under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired land in two blocks - Block A and Block B. He fixed market value of the land falling in Block A at Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha and that falling in Block B at Rs. 2.500.00 per bigha. The land of the appellant in both the awards falls in Block A. The learned Additional District Judge fixed the Market value of the land in Block A at Rs. 8,OCO.00 per bigha. Of course, the appellant was awarded solarium at the rate of 15/o and...
Surjit Singh Kalra Vs. V.N. Channa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT533
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) The present revision petition, filed under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act, is directed against the order of eviction dated March 2, 1989, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. (2) Briefly stated, the facts are as under : Premises No. W-2, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi, were let out to petitioner by respondent on May 15, 1969, on the monthly rent of Rs. 77 V-, exclusive of water and electricity charges. The premises consists of three bed rooms with attached bath and latrine, store, kitchen, drawing and dining room, courtyard etc. By the Amending Act, 57 of 1988, some more classes of landlords were carved out, from the classes of general landlords. Section 14-B to Section 14-D are the provisions, which were added in the Act, so as to give to classified landlords, certain special rights, to recover immediate possession of the premises, let out by them, if they were required for their own residence. respondent who wa...
Ruchi Associates Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT155TriDel
1. These appeals are against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras. The appeals involve common issue and are therefore taken up together for disposal.2. Brief facts are that the appellants imported Brass Ash Dross from M/s. Charney Ltd, Florida, U.S.A. and declared the invoice value based on the invoice price. The authorities however on information that the value had been misdeclared conducted investigations and sought to assess the goods based on the price of copper as given in the metal bulletin showing the London general price. There was no separate price list shown for Brass Ash Dross in the said metal bulletin, but the authorities worked out the price based on the formula for price of Brass Ash Dross as given in the Metal Bulletin as under: "For 10 tonne lots and over delivered buyers works with Cu contents of upto 30%, a deduction of 2.5 units is made, while for material containing 30% to 50% Cu, a deduction of 2 units is made. Cu contents is paid for at lowes...
Urethane India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC164
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras dated 31-1-1990 by which he had confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, (Group-1 & 2), Madras Customs House dated 26-12-1989 confirming the classification of Polyurethane Resin Polytetramethlene Adipate Glycol (PTMAG) imported by the appellants as "other polyesters' under Heading 3907.99 and not under 2905 as "other Diols'. The appellants imported a consignment of PTMAG and filed into Ex-bond Bill of Entry dated 15-11-1989 and sought clearance of a quantity of 3057 Kg. of a material by filing an Ex-bond Bill of Entry dated 11-12-1989 claiming assessment of the goods under sub-heading 2905.39 which covers 'other Diols'. The Assistant Collector of Customs passed an order holding that the goods imported by the appellants are classifiable under Heading 3907.20 as 'other Polyethers' on the basis of report given by the Chief Chemist, Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL). Th...
Narayan International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC656Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal arises out of an order-inoriginal No. 8/91, dated 15-1-1991 of the Addl. Collector.2. The appellants imported a consignment of "Y.K.K. polyster zippers type LFC-32, No. 3, size 8" of Japanese origin from Singapore under invoice number RIC/9023 dated 15-6-1990. The total number of zippers imported are 4,10,000 pieces. The value declared by the appellants is at the rate of Singapore dollars 13 per 100 pieces. The total value of the consignment was Singapore $ 53,300/- C.I.F. The Bill of Entry was filed on 23-6-1990.3. The appellants did not insist on a show cause notice as they were incurring heavy demurrage. However, the Addl. Collector enhanced the value of the goods imported without hearing the appellants. The appellants, therefore, approached this Tribunal by way of an appeal.This Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the matter to the Addl. Collector with the following observations : "We, therefore, without going into the merits set aside the impu...
Kaycee Electricals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT889TriDel
1. M/s. Kaycee Electricals, B-7, Zhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. The said appeal was received in the Registry on the 12th day of March, 1991. Simultaneously, a stay application duly supported with an affidavit was also presented. A notice of hearing dated 18th March, 1.991, was issued to the applicants listing the stay application for hearing for today i.e. the 21st day of May, 1991.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, the learned Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He pleaded that the amount involved is Rs. 4,98,84,151.39 and the period involved is 1st May, 1980 to 31st March, 1983, and the appellant manufactures copper wire rods from copper wire bars. He pleaded that before the Collector the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 119/66-CE dated 16th July, 1966 as amended by various notifications from time to time and the last amended Notification No. was ...
Cibatul Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT883TriDel
1. The point for determination in this appeal is the eligibility of the goods imported to the benefit of exemption under Notification 64/79 dated 6-3-1979 partially exempting certain specified raw material used for the manufacture of drugs from payment of customs duty.2. The appellants imported acetonitrile in 3 shipments. These 3 shipments are as under:---------------------------------------------------------------------- Details for Consign- Details for Consign- Details for consign ment No. 1 ment No. 2 ment No. 3Name of Ship JESENICE VISHVA VISHVA ADITYA AMITABHCash No. 1177 dated 9-4-1979 1501 dated 19-8-1979 2811 dated 21-9-1979 3. The imported goods were used in the manufacture of Sodium Salt of sulpha somidine which in turn was converted into the bulk drug sulpha somidine. As the Customs Department was of the view that in order to claim the benefit of concessional rate of duty available under Sl. No.11 of the table annexed to the above mentioned Notification, conversion of acet...
Umesh Chand Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD588(Delhi)
1. These two appeals by the assessee relating to penalties imposed under Sections 273(1)(b) and 271(1)(a) for assessment year 1986-87, are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of con venience.Brief facts giving rise to these appeals, arc that the assessce had opened a savings bank account No. 5821 in the joint names of Peush &Rachna in UCO Bank, Bulandshahr in which a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs had been deposited on 27-3-1986. Further deposits had been made in this account from 24-4-1986 to 9-8-1986, totalling Rs. 4 lakhs. On receiving the information about the existence of the bank account and the deposit of money, the Assessing Officer started making enquiries. On 29-8-1986 the Assessing Officer issued prohibitory orders to the bank in regard to this bank account. On 1st of September, 1986 a notice under Section 139(2) was issued to the asscssee for the assessment year 1986-87 which was, however, served on 3rd of September, 1986. On 2nd of September, 1986 a letter was iss...
Joginder Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: II(1992)BC88; 1991CriLJ2897; 1991(2)Crimes551; 44(1991)DLT518; 1991RLR357
S.C. Jain, J. (1) Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that maruti van Ddv 3268 was got financed by Mrs. Parvinder Kaur and Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sahi to the extent of Rs. 55,000.00 under a hire purchase agreement in the month of November, 1987. The amount so advanced along with interest was to be repaid in 36 Installments of Rs. 2306.94, but the party failed to pay the Installments as agreed to by them and the cheques issued by them were returned by the bankers for want of sufficient funds. Notices were sent by the finance company to pay the Installments but to no effect. Ultimately, on 4.4.89 at about 12.30 p.m. when this vehicle was parked near Rakabganj Gurudwara the present petitioner Joginder Kumar, who is an employee of the finance company seized the vehicle at the instance of the company by unlocking the van with a duplicate key which the finance company was having and when he started the vehicle, the complainant raised hue and cry and the petitioner Joginder Kumar along...
Autar Krishan Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT739
M.C. Jain, C.J.(1) As common questions are involved, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. (2) The petitioners are registrants in Self-Financing Registration Scheme No. 2. There are three petitioners in the first writ petition (C.W.P. No. 2337/82) and one petitioner in the second writ petition (C.W.P. No. 3711/82). The petitioners have deposited Rs. 10,000.00 each on various dates. The draw of allocation of flats was held on 6th July, 1982. The petitioners were interested in flats situated in East of Kailash. The lucky No. drawn was 135. There were 54 flats to be allocated. Out of these flats, 17 flats were allotted to those registered under Self-Financing Registration Scheme No. 1. 37 flats remained to be allocated in Self-Financing Registration Scheme No. 2 after meeting the requirements of the reserved categories. According to the petitioner, their random Nos. were 167, 169, 162 and 164. As per the Brochure, 25% of the flats were reserved for SC/ST registr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »