Delhi Court September 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 4 of about 93 results (0.019 seconds)Daurala Sugar Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC170
1. Being dissatisfied with the rejection of the rebate claim, the appellants have filed their present appeal.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that, the appellants inter alia manufactures and sells sugar falling under Tariff Item I of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Central Government issued Notification No. 146/74-CE dated 12.10.1974, inter alia granting an exemption in respect of the duty of excise leviable on sugar produced during the period commencing on 1.12.1974 and ending on 30.9.1975 which was in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding five sugar years. It is the case of the appellants that pursuant to the aforesaid exemption Notification, the appellants filed their rebate claim for a certain amount. On receipt of the rebate claim, the Superintendent of Central Excise, informed the appellants that their said claim has been sanctioned to the extent of Rs. 10,74,590.61. The appellants received the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Megsons Exports Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Del)42; 45(1991)DLT559; [1992]194ITR225(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 15, 1990, where by the appropriate authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961, had not granted permission to the petitioner which he has sought by an application in Form No. 37-I of the Act. 2. Respondent No. 4 is the owner of the property bearing No. D/41, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. It had entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favor of the petitioner. An application was filed on January 31, 1990, in Form No. 37-I in accordance with the provisions of section 269UC. The appropriate authority, by the impugned order, did not grant the 'no objection certificate' nor did he exercise the right of pre-emptive purchase. He came to the conclusion that the agreement which has been entered into by the owner with the proposed transferee had resulted in the creation of certain rights in favor of the transferee in accordance with the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of property ...
Tag this Judgment!The Council of the Institute of Accountants of India, New Delhi Vs. Di ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(21)DRJ238
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a reference made under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') by the Council of the Institute to Chartered Accountant of India constituted under the said Act recommending that the respondent a Chartered Accountant and a member of the Institute, be reprimanded for contravention of the provisions to Regulation 32B of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1964.(2) The facts in brief are that the respondent bad employed Mr. Yatendra Singh as an articled clerk for a period from I October 1980 to 3 March 1982. The articled clerk complained to the Institute that he was not paid stipend by the respondent for all this period. The complaint is dated 31 March 1982. On this a notice was issued to the respondent on 14 April 1982. He replied by letter dated 21 April 1982 admitting that he had not paid the stipend due to the articled clerk but said that at the time of the engagement of the articled clerk his father had told the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Himmat Ram and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1992)DMC204; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)249
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of proceedings in Fir No. 57/89, in Police Station, Kingsway Camp, under Sections 498-A and 406, Ipc, pending in the court of Shri N. K. Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.(2) Briefly stated that the facts leading to the filing of this petition that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the parents of petitioner No. 3 Rajesh Kumar, petitioner No. 3 was married to Smt. Shashi, respondent No. 2 on 19.6.87 and thereafter, they started living together as husband and wife. They, however, could not pull on well together and on 6th March, 1989, Smt. Shashi, respondent No. 2 got Fir No. 57/89 recorded against the petitioners, under Section 498-A and 406, Ipc, in Police Station Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Challan was filed in Court and is now pending in the Court of Shri N. R. Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi fixed for 13th December, 1991.(3) Parties have entere...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Rani Vs. Tripati Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT601
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is a suit for partition of the property by metes and bounds fully shown in Annexure 'A' annexed to the application filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present suit are as under : Plot No. 42, Block J-3, measuring 160 square yards, situated at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi shown by red lines in the plan Annexure 'A' annexed with the application was purchased by one Dina Nath Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi. The said properly was thereafter divided into two equal shares by said Shri Dina Nath and Smt. Shanti Devi. The property measuring 80 square-yards shown in the site-plan Annexure-'A' covered by red lines fell to the share of Shri Dina Nath The said Shri Dina Nath breathed his last vide death certificate Ex. Public Witness 1/A on 19th September, 1986 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as the legal heirs. Hence each one of them is entitled to l/4th share in the above said property....
Tag this Judgment!Aman Ahmed Naqvi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT514
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ,order or direction for immediate release of the petitioner and setting aside the detention order dated 30.10.90 passed by the Administrator, Delhi Administration under Section 3(1) and the Declaration dated 20.11.90 passed by Special Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue,New Delhi, under Section 9(1) of the Cofeposa Act.(2) It may not be necessary to give all the different grounds challenging the impugned orders. The petitioner filed Cr. M. 261/91 taking up another ground for challenging the detention order and during the course of arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner relies only on that ground. That ground is in para 16 of the writ petition which is as follows, 'On the basis of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Admini...
Tag this Judgment!Bishan Lal Bhalla Vs. Arjun Rijhsinghani
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT398
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) By the present revision petition, filed under proviso to Sub-Section 8 of Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the owner/ landlord, petitioner herein, seeks to challenge the impugned order dated May 6, 1988, passed by Shri V.K. Jain, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby, his petition for eviction of tenant, respondent berein, was dismissed. (2) Petitioner is the owner of a double storey house, bearing municipal No. B-18, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. The portions, on the ground floor and first floor of the premises are identical in the year 1975, petitioner lot out to respondent the entire first floor, in the said premises, on the payment of Rs. 1,000 as rent, per mensem. As, the tenanted premises were required by petitioner, bonafide for the use as residence, for himself and the members of his family, dependent upon him, so petitioner filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) and 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, for eviction of respondent. (3) The Addit...
Tag this Judgment!QayamuddIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT258
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Qayamuddin has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby praying that the order dated 22nd January, 1991, detaining him may be set aside and he be ordered to be released forthwith. (2) On 22nd January, 1991, Shri Mohinder Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, especially empowered officer, exercising powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ordered for the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. This order of detention was served upon the petitioner on 12th February, 1991 and the grounds of detention Along with the documents relied upon in support of the detention order were also served upon the petitioner. (3) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on 14th September, 1990 the pet...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd and ors. Vs. Sheila Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1992)ACC611
G.C. Mittal, C.J. 1. A cyclist was run over by a truck. As a result of injuries sustained in the accident the cyclist died. His widow, minor child and parents filed an application for a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 24,800/-. However, the liability of the Assurance Company was limited to Rs. 20,000/-. The claimants came up to this Court in appeal and a learned Single Judge by a well considered judgment dated 14th October, 1988 enhanced the amount to Rs. 96,000/-, besides awarding interest after coming to the conclusion that out of the monthly income of Rs. 500/-he was contributing Rs.400/-towards his family and applied the multiplier of 20. There is no discussion in the judgment of the learned Single Judge about the limited liability of the Assurance Company. However, the Assurance Company, was made liable for payment of the entire amount.2. This appeal is by the Assurance Company as also by the insured. On consideration of the matter we ...
Tag this Judgment!Atco Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT654TriDel
1.1 The appellants herein imported a consignment of 24 sets of Shimadzu Analytical Balance, Model AEU 210 from M/s. Shimadzu (Asia Pacific) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. The declared invoice price is at the rate of Japanese Yen 1,20,000 per set FOB. The appellants filed the bill of entry and gave a declaration under Rule 10 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 that they are not related with the supplier. The importers vide their letter dated 16-10-1990, runs the allegation, stated that they are not an agent to the supplier. They also submitted indent, letter of credit and correspondence with the supplier stating that they have negotiated the price for 104 sets out of which part shipment of 24 sets has arrived. The price lists submitted by the appellants themselves indicated the price of the aforesaid model at Jap. Yen 2,60,000 per set FOB. It was also alleged that the said price list did not provide any discount schedule with reference to quantity but showed a discount schedule for the distributo...
Tag this Judgment!