Delhi Court January 1992 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.
Harnam Kaur Vs. Ajit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT385
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This revision arises out of an order passed by the trial Court on an application of the defendant-respondent herein under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for the stay of the suit instituted subsequently on the basis that the matter in issue in this suit is the same as the matter in issue in the suit instituted by the defendant/respondent earlier against the petitioner and others. (2) To appreciate the position in law, it will be in order to reproduce the Sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure : S.10. Stay of suits : No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India es...
Indian Explosives Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: [1992]195ITR232(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order 7th April, 1986 passed by the Specified Authority, Government of India, Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Development, under section 72-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), whereby it did not recommend to the Central Government to make declaration under that section.(2) This writ petition will dispose of Civil Writ No. 1644 of 1986 and Civil Writ No.485 of 1989. (3) Briefly stated, the facts are that a company known as M/s. Alkali & Chemicls Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ACCI') was carrying on business or manufacture and sale of polythene, rubber Chemicals, paints etc. The said Acci was incurring losses especially in the financial years 1980-8). and 1981-82. Both the companies, namely, the petitioner and Acci decided to amalgamate. Accordingly, on 30th September, 1982 the petitioner and Acci passed resolutions in their respect...
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT323
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 29 8.78, Vijay Kumar Gupta, respondent herein, filed an eviction petition against 0m Parkash Sharma, petitioner herein, seeking eviction from the suit premises No. 8539, Ward No. 4, Arakashan Road, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25A-25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Summons in the form specified in Schedule Iii were served on the petitioner on 29.9,78 in the ordinary way. He however, did not file an application seeking leave to defend within 15 days, as prescribed under Section 25-B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. An application was filed on 25th October, 78 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay. That application for condensation of delay was, however, dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller and an eviction order was passed against the petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) ...
Surinder Kumar Vs. Prem Nath Pialok and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT310
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Prem Nath, respondent No. I herein, filed an eviction petition against Narinder Kumar respondent No. 2 under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Appellant Surinder Kumar filed an application for being imp leaded as a party in the eviction petition, which application was dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller. Against the dismissal of the application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code the appellant filed C.M. (M) No. 201) of 1987 titled S'urinder Kumar v. Prem Nath, which was dismissed on 7-12-1988 by this Court observing 'if the petitioner has an independent right of tenancy it will be open to him to move an application under Section 25 of the Act'. (2) In the eviction petition an order of eviction was passed against respondent No. 2 on 9-3-1989 and thereafter the appellant filed objections under Section 25 of the Act which were dismissed ...
Durga Devi Vs. S. Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT356
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Durga Devi, petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act with respect to the suit premises in property No. D-8, Ndse Part Ii against S. Kumar, respondent herein. Summons specified in Third Schedule in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued. Personal service on the respondent tenant was not effected. However, service on respondent was shown at D-8, Ndse Part I by refusal by the process server on 18.7.84 and 20.7.84 and by the postman on 18.7.84 and 3.9.84. Finding that no application seeking leave to defend has been filed within 15 days from the date of service by refusal, the Addl. Rent Controller passed an ex-pane eviction decree against the tenant respondent herein. (2) Aggrieved, the judgment debtor S. Kumar respondent herein filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code . for setting aside the ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modi Steels
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)(42)LC302Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 4th March, 1985. In column No. 3 the date of communication has been mentioned as 21st September, 1984. Thus there is a delay of 73 days.Shri S.K. Sharma, the learned JDR has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. He pleaded that there was misplacement of file and the file was located with much difficulty and on the location of the file, the appeal was filed. He pleaded that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal and the delay may be condoned.2. Shri Lachhman Dev, the learned consultant who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, opposed the condonation of delay. He pleaded that the application for condonation of delay is not supported with an affidavit and mispla...
Indian Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT138TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-original No. 18/MP/91 dt. 18-3-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara confirming the demands raised in the show cause notice dt.4-10-1990 and has demanded duty amounting to Rs. 3,02,67,299.90 (Three crores, two lakhs sixty seven thousand two hundred ninety nine and paise ninety only) Basic Excise duty Rs. 2,88,25,800.47 + Special Excise duty - Rs. 14,41,491.43) in respect of alleged illicit removal of Acrylic Fibre during the period October, 1989 to August, 1990 under the provisions of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section- 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act,1944. (ii) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (iii) Ordered confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery etc. belonging to them and used in the manufacture, production, storage and removals of Acrylic Fibre under the provisions of clause (a) to sub-rul...
Style Dyers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT126TriDel
1. The short question to be decided in this appeal is whether embroidered grey cotton fabrics subjected to the process of bleaching or dyeing attract further levy of Central Excise duty. The appellants, who have been engaged in the processing of such fabrics, filed a classification list effective from 31-7-1987 and sought exemption from duty in terms of clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in their letter F. No. 25/12/69-Cx. 2 dated 18-1-1974 which is as under :- "Doubts have been raised whether processing duty is payable on a fabric on which embroidery has been done and which, thereafter, is subjected to further processing of bleaching, dyeing, mercerising, etc." 2. The question has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and the Comptroller & Auditor General. The Board has been advised that since the base fabric and the embroidery fall under two different tariff sub-items, once the base fabric has been converted into embroidery, it goe...
Vijayawada Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT460TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of aerated water. They filed a price list on 13-3-1978 claiming assessable value of aerated waters at Rs. 11 per crate. They have also claimed concessional rate of duty at 25% under exemption Notification No. 211/77 dt. 4-7-1977 in respect of first clearance for home consumption upto 50 lakhs bottles. The Assistant Collector while approving the price list at Rs. 11/- per crate rejected their claim for concessional rate of duty at 25% in respect of 50 lakhs bottles. In pursuance of the order of the Assistant Collector, the appellants paid duty at 55% ad valorem under protest from 25-4-1978. The appellants also challenged the order of the Assistant Collector by way of an appeal. The Collector allowed the appeal and upheld the claim of the appellants for concessional rate of duty at 25% under Notification No. 211/77. Consequent upon the order of the Collector the appellants filed a claim for refund of duty from 24-4-1978 to 30-5-1978 for an amount of Rs...
Pragati Press Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-1992
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT620TriDel
1. A common order is being passed because both these matters arise out of a common impugned order. 2.1 The appellant concern whose proprietor is the second appellant herein imported two second-hand machines, namely, (i) one Heidelberg Speed-master 72 VP, 4 Colour offset printing machine Model, 1983 with declared GIF value at 49,000; and (ii) one Stall, K-66/4 Ktl 3 Paper folding machine Model, 1983 with declared GIF value at 3,000.00. As per the practice and procedure certificates from Chartered Engineers giving the estimate of the prices as declared aforesaid were also enclosed Chartered Engineers in the present case are M/s. Arcadia Printing and Graphic Machinery (T. Thomas) in respect of both the machines. 2.2 Both the machines were examined on 1-6-1990 by the officers of the Customs under SIB supervision when they were found to be second-hand as declared. Later on, it appears that on the basis of a complaint the said machines were re-examined on 10-7-1990. On the basis of the said...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »