Delhi Court February 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.
Krishna Wanti Vs. Ravinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC572
P.N. Nag, J. 1. This appeal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been filed against the order dated. 9th February 1987 passed by Shri. V. B. Gupta, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 43,200/- (Less Rs. 15,000/- already paid to appellant under Section 92-A) i.e. Rs. 28,200/ - with costs of Rs. 500/- in favor of the appellant and against the respondent No. 3-- Insurance Company--on behalf of all the respondents.2. The relevant brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the deceased, Harish Kumar, died in an accident which took place on the mid night of 23/24.3.1983. While the deceased was boarding a cycle rickshaw after witnessing a night show in Samrat Cinema when truck No. PBO-681 driven by its driver (respondent No. 1) struck the cycle rickshaw and he fell and sustained injuries which proved fatal and on account of which the deceased died. It was alleged in the petition that the truck was being driven rashly...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Fruit Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: (1992)(43)LC268Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Guntur has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. A notice of hearing dated 12th December, 1991 was sent by registered post. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. The respondents have not filed any application for adjournment, nor they have made any arrangement for proper representation before the Bench. Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram, learned SDR has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly we proceed to decide the matter ex pane. Mrs. Sundaram pleaded that the issue involved is in respect of the respondents' claim of refund dated 30th August, 1988 in respect of special excise duty of Rs. 1381.71 paid by them on the pre-Budget stock of Mango pulp, held by them on the midnight of 29.2.1988/1.3.1988 and cleared from 1.3.1988 to 15.7.1988. Smt.Sundaram, learned SDR pleaded that the issue has been decided by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mis Vallore Fabric v. C...
New Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: (1992)(40)LC563Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned applications have been filed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of approximately Rs. 11 crores and penalty of Rs. 27.65 lakhs levied and imposed by the Department for alleged suppression of production of cigarettes. The details are as follows:________________________________________________________Appeal Date of show Duty amount Penalty Period of No. show notice Rs. Rs. demand________________________________________________________E/250/91 9.12.85 6,21,97,754.50 10 lakhs Jan. 84- 29.5.85E/249 29.11.85 1,88,80,700.00 7 lakhs 30.5.85- 31.10.85E/252 23.2.86 2,76,17,343.00 10 lakhs 1.10.85- 31.1.86E/251 29.5.86 3,19,943.85 15,000 March 86E/253 2.10.86 9,67,114.95 50,000 April-June 86___________________________________________________________ The allegation of the Department is that the applicant who is a manufacturer of cigarettes suppressed production, manipulated records and removed cigarettes without payment of duty. The production recorded in machine production c...
Ramesh Chand Vs. Daljit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ991; 48(1992)DLT338; 1992(22)DRJ617; 1992RLR138
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J. (1) The appellant was a pedestrian and was run over by a three- wheeler scooter. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that in view of the report made in the Daily Diary at the instance of the appellant that the three-wheeler scooter struck him in order to save a girl pedestrian, did not amount to any fault on the part of the three-wheeler and. thereforee, three-wheeler was not negligent. However, while calculating the compensation, took notice of the four injuries, one of which was fracture of left tibia and assessed the compensation at Rs. 12,600.00 . Since negligence was not proved, the claim application was dismissed. THE learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal in liming. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.--- *** ---ONa consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal took wrong view on facts and in law. A reading of, what the appellant, stated in the Daily Diary, shows that the three wheeler t...
Abhimanyu Kumar Sethi Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT295
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of demand/allotment letter dated 12th/ 13/03/1991 by which L I G Flat No. C-6, 141, Ground Floor, Lawrence Road, New Delhi, was allotted to him and a demand in the sum of Rs. 1,70,800.00 was made. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to charge anything more than Rs. 13.200.00 for the said flat and in any case not more than Rs 18 000?- as per the terms and conditions of Registration Scheme on NewPattern. The case of petitioner is that in the year 1973 similar flats were allotted by Dda for Rs. 13,200.00. The petitioner got himself registered in the year 1980 under 1979 Scheme and as such the rate at which allotment was madein the year 1973 is not relevant.(2) The amount of Rs. 18,000.00 for Lig flats as given in 1979 Scheme was tentative. The respondent-DDA in answer to show cause has explained that the amount of Rs. 1,70,800.00 has been worked out on 'No profit ...
Tryba Marek Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT418; 1992(22)DRJ408
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The detenu through the petitioner has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed, inter alia, that the writ of hebeas corpus be issued quashing the detention order dated 6th March, 1991, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.(2) On 11th March, 1991, the detenu while he was in judicial custody was detained in pursuance of the said detention order on 6.3.1991. The detenu was served with the grounds of detention and some other documents in Polish language with which the detenu was well conversant. The detenu while in transit from Singapore to Amsterdam by Klm Flight no.KL-836 arrived at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, on 25.2.1991. The detenu came out of the aircraft into the aerobridge, with transit pass, when he was asked by the Customs Officers to ...
S.A. Casting Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)(43)LC271Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported one Horizontal Continuous Casting Machine Model RC 650 complete with standard accessories from U.K. In order to avail the concession under the Project Import Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff they applied for the registration of the contract in terms of the Project Imports Regulations, 1986. They filed a Bill of Entry claiming the assessment of the goods under Heading 98.01. The appellants claimed total exemption from the payment of auxiliary duty on the imported goods under Notification No. 139/90 dated 20.3.1990 in which against Serial No. 34 'Casting Machine' was specifically mentioned. The Assistant Collector held that the imported Casting Machine and accessories having been assessed to basic duty of Customs under Heading 98.01 were not eligible to exemption from the levy of auxiliary duty since in terms of Serial No. 3...
Cce Vs. Eastend Paper Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)(40)LC190Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. Briefly stated the facts of the case arc that the respondents claimed proforma credit of duty paid on wrapping paper brought from outside for use as wrapping of finished paper reams. The Assistant Collector held that benefit in terms of Rule 56A was not admissible in respect of wrapping paper since it could not be deemed either as component or raw material for the manufacture of paper. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector the respondents filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who in the impugned order held that benefit of proforma credit in respect of duty paid on wrapping paper was admissible in terms of Rule 56A since such paper when used for wrapping of reams of finished paper could be deemed as having been used up in a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product.The Collector (Appeals) in arrivi...
Hazi Ehsamul Haq Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)LC457Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 19.7.1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 1.7.1972 the officers of the Kanpur Central Excise Collectorate searched the business premises of the appellants and recovered finished and unfinished new ornaments as well as used ornaments and pieces of ornaments collectively weighing 1153 gms. The Collector of Customs (Preventive), Indo-Nepal Border vide his order dated 23.11.1973 adjudicated the case and confiscated the seized gold and gold ornaments under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Against the order passed by the Collector the appeal preferred before the Gold Control Administrator was decided vide order No. 241 dated 15.6.1977 with the direction that the case be readjudicated after giving proper opportunity to the respondents to co-relate the seized ornaments with the statutory records. Thereafter, the Additional Collector readjudicated the case and vid...
Udai Lal Doshi Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT288TriDel
1. Both the appeals are against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur on 31-3-1987.2. The learned Collector lias under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, ordered for the confiscation of seized 10 pieces of gold weighing 10 tolas each (total 1166.400 gms) in the form of gold biscuits having foreign markings and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise & Customs Division, Udaipur issued a show cause notice dated 30-10-1986 to the appellants making out the following charges on the basis of the facts stated therein. (i) It was alleged that on 11th and 12th of April, 1984, the residential premises of the appellants was searched by the Income tax authorities under the Income-tax Act which resulted among other things, 10 pieces of gold weighing 10 tolas each (total 1166.400 gms). These 10 pieces of gold so recovered were said to be gold biscuits having forei...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »