Delhi Court August 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 5 of about 120 results (0.012 seconds)Sukh Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. Jagdish Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC98
S.B. Wad, J. 1. In an accident caused by Tempo Number DLL 7020, Rishpal Singh, aged 8 years, was killed on 25.3.1974. The petition for compensation was filed by the father, the mother and the sisters of the deceased. They had claimed Rs. 70,000/- as compensation. The learned Judge of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, relying on some Indian and English decisions held that Rs. 8,000/- is the proper compensation. The present appeal is filed for the enhancement of compensation. There is no cross-appeal, thereforee, the fact of accident and the death caused due to the accident are beyond challenge. The only question to be decided in this appeal is as to what is the proper compensation.2. In J.C. Kapoor and Anr. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. and Ors. 1988 ACJ 1096 I had considered all aspects of the proper and just compensation in cases where the victims of the accident are very young children. In that case also the victim was also an 8 year old child and I had awarded Rs. 20,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Noble Soya House Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(40)LC4Tri(Delhi)
1. This stay application is directed against the orders of the Collector of Central of Central Excise, Indore, demanding duty of Rs. 11,82,509,68 (Rupees Eleven lakhs eighty two thousand five hundred nine and paise sixty eight only)" under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the applicants under Rule 173Q for violation of the provisions of Central Excise Rules. The allegation against them was that they had manufactured soya milk beverage which was liable to duty under sub-heading 2202.90 of the Central Excise Tariff whereas they misstated it as soya milk and claimed exemption under notification 286/86 dated 5.5.1986 (now 20/89 dated 1.3.1989).The duty was demanded in four different show cause notices issued under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11 A, as per details given below:a) SCN dt. 9.12.1988 - Period 1.5.1988 to 31.10.1988 issued by Asst.Collector.(b) SCN dt. 28.4.1989 - Peri...
Tag this Judgment!A. Samad Ali Mohd Albulushi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC143
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his detention in pursuance of an order dated 24th of August 1990 passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, specially empowered officer of the Central Government, under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner is a foreigner. He is holder of Omani passport No.577443. The impugned order of detention was served upon him along with grounds of detention and documents in support thereof while he was already in custody in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi on 24th of August 1990.3. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that on 10th of March 1990, the petitioner arrived at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi by Gulf Airways flight No. GF 0074. He walked through the Customs Green Channel. He was intercepted at the exist gate of the Arrival Hall. His personal search revealed that 10 gold biscuits of 10 totals each were concealed in each of the slippers (chappals) that he...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kapoor and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC202Tri(Delhi)
1. S/Shri Vijay Kapoor and Inder Sain Kapoor have filed the above-captioned appeals being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi. Notices of hearing listing the stay applications were issued. Shri N. Singh, learned Consultant, had appeared earlier and on his request, the matters were adjourned for today, that is, the 20th day of August, 1991. The matters were called.Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants. The appellants have not filed any application for adjournment and have also not made any arrangement for proper representation before the Bench. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the stay applications on merits.2. At the outset of the hearing, Shri G. Bhushan, learned SDR, raised a preliminary objection that these are appeals against baggage cases, and in terms of proviso to Section 129A, no appeal lies to the Tribunal.The proper forum for the appellants is to file revision application before the Central Govt. Shri Bhushan further pl...
Tag this Judgment!V. Bhagat Vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi267; I(1993)DMC435; 1992RLR37
ORDERSantosh Duggal, J.1. The present application under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is moved by the petitioner, who has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against his wife, on grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion.2. In so far as this application is concerned, the petitioner contends himself to be entitled to a decree of divorce on the basis of some averments made by the respondent in the written statement. The plea is that in a number of paragraphs of the written statement, which he has pin-pointed in paragraph 169 of the amended petition to be paragraphs 4, 4C, 4E, 5, 12, 14, 20, 28-29, 32, 33-34, 36, 37B, 38, 43, 48, 58, 73, 80, 100, 138, 143 and 145, the respondent has imputed lunacy and insanity to him and since he is a practicing lawyer in the Supreme Court, all these allegations per se constitute cruelty of a very grave nature, as these were baseless and grotesque in nature. He contends that the allegations expose the respondent as...
Tag this Judgment!Shourie Duplicators Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance C ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT333; [1991(63)FLR873]; (1992)IILLJ443Del
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The short question to be determined in this appeal filed by the management is whether payments made by the management to its employees under Production Bonus Scheme falls within the definition of 'Wages' as defined in the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') or not. (2) In short, the case of the management is that with the object of inducing workers to achieve more efficiency it introduced a voluntary production scheme with effect from 1st April, 1971. The Scheme envisages that on the production in a month which is in excess of the basic production of 125 units the management shall pay production bonus to the employees at Rs. 15.00 per unit to the extent of 75 standard units over and above 125 units and for the second slab of 100 units it will be Rs. 25.00 per units and for the third slab of 100 units it will be Rs. 35.00 per unit; that the amount payable to any one employee is subject to a ceiling of Rs. 100.00 per month; that in case of any...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. S.D.S. Bali and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT215; 1991RLR460
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who had allowed the appeal of the respondents filed under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.(2) Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of the house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. In respect of the year 1984-85 the Assessor and Collector vide his order dated 7/01/1987 fixed the rate able value at Rs86,670.00w.e.f. 1st November, 1984 and Rs. 1,13,470.00 w.e.f. 1/02/1985. In arriving at this value the Assessor and Collector took into consideration the cost of land and the cost of construction as well as the rent which was received for the part of the building which had been let out. The construction, in the instant case, had commenced in the year 1981. The Assessor & Collector took the market price of the land to be Rs. 1800 per sq. mtr.In arriving at the cost of the construction he applied the C P.W.D. rates. The Accessor & Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M.L. BhasIn Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT579
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) In this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the decision of respondent no. 2, thereby, charging unearned increase, on the basis of the land rate, other than that, prevailing on the date. of application, for permission to sell the Immovable property, as well as, the interest thereon. Petitioners also challenged ^ the power of respondents to levy unearned increase, as per the terms and conditions of perpetual lease-deed. However, during the course of arguments, petitioners sought liberty of this Court, not to press this ground, since the question was one of fact. (2) For better appreciation of the questions, involved in the petition, and the contentions, urged before me, by learned Counsel for parties, it will be useful to refer to, in brief, the facts and circumstances of the case. (3) By a perpetual lease-deed, dated August 20, 1954, plot bearing No. 159, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, was leased out by Pres...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnathully Vblayudhan Subramaniann Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992(2)Crimes486; 45(1991)DLT317; 1992(37)ECC81
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner at a pre-deception stage seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to restrain respondent-UOI and the State of Kerala from implementing the order of detention purported to have been passed under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act, on 8.9.88 and also to quash the proclamation dated 12 4.89 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Trichur, Kerala, respondent No. 3 under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also quashing of all other consequential proceedings pending against the petitioner before the CJM. (2) One E.V.Dasan had arrived at Trivandrum Air Port from Dubai by Air India flight on 23.388. 21 gold biscuits of foreign mark concealed in emergency light were allegedly recovered from his baggage, as also six crude gold chains. In addition, Dasan was also found to have one cover addresse...
Tag this Judgment!Pargat Singh Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)LC551Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh imposing a penalty of Rupees one lakh under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 on the ground that he smuggled gold of foreign origin into India and dealt with it. The confiscation of the gold valued at Rs. 15,94,505/- has been ordered by the Collector under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act by the same adjudication order under which penalty has been imposed on the appellant.2. The appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed without affording to the appellant an effective and real opportunity of defending his case because the adjudicating authority was not justified in denying the request of the appellant's counsel to adjourn the date of personal hearing fixed for 16-5-1988. It is also stated that the counsel had sufficient cause for asking for adjournment and, in any case, this was the first adjournment prayed for by the appellant's counsel....
Tag this Judgment!