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.
Hamza Nozoglu Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2221; 1992(1)Crimes1028; 46(1992)DLT517; 1992(22)DRJ427
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed, inter alia, that the writ of habeas corpus be issued, quashing the order of detention dated 6-2-91, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, u/S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and also preventing him from engaging in, transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. Acting on intelligence report on 15-1-91, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi (Headquarters) mounted surveillance in Sunder Nagar in the vicinity of a hotel Kailash Inn, 10, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. The officers found one Caravan (Mini Bus) with foreign registration, parked outside the Inn. Enquiries with the hotel revealed that the owner of the Caravan was a Turkish national named Hamza Nozoglu, who was staying in Room No. 117 of the hotel. The office...
G.E.C. of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: (1992)(41)LC680Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants had originally filed an appeal against order dated 13.10.1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disposing of two appeals which involved common issues. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 12.10.1987. The appellants have also filed a supplementary appeal which was received on 30.10.1991. Having regard to the fact that the appeal dated 13.10.1986 against the common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) was filed within the prescribed period, we condone the delay in filing of the supplementary appeal.2. Since the above captioned appeals emerge from a consolidated order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the same are disposed of by this consolidated order.3. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, the learned Advocate Shri L.P. Asthana drew the attention, of the Bench to the Misc. application dated 19.8.1991 in which the appellants have made a prayer for raising an additional ground of appeal. He stated that the appellants ...
Dalmia Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: (1992)(39)ECC29
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-appeal plassed by the Collector (Appeals) who has upheld the classification of the appellants' product 'New Sapan Dairy Special' under sub-heading 0401.13 of Chapter 4 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants had contended that their product was classifiable under sub-heading 0401.90 or in the alternative under Heading 0404.00 which had been rejected by the lower authorities.2. The appellants have contended that they are engaged in the manufacture of various dairy products at its factory at Bharatpur. In the month of September, 1989, they introduced a new product known as 'New Sapan Dairy Special'. It is their contention that the product was essentially partially skimmed milk powder which was sweetened and to which certain additives like vitamins, minerals were added. The composition of the said product is as follows - It is contended by the appellants that on or about 4-9-1989, they filed a classification list seeking classi...
Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)47ITD164(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order under Section 263 dated 31-3-1987 of the CIT, Meerut.2. The assessee is a public limited company deriving income from manufacture and sale of vegetable ghee, refined oil, soap and paper.Return of income for the assessment year 1982-83 had been filed by the assessee on 1st July, 1982 declaring income of Rs. 89,41,839 which was revised on 20th November, 1982 declaring net income of Rs. 87,68,898.The return had again been revised on 13th March, 1985 disclosing net income at Rs. 79,26,250. The Assessing Officer framed an assessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 29th March, 1985 determining income at Rs. 92,58,170. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order to the CIT (Appeals), Meerut who disposed of the same on 23-1-1987. The CIT (Administration) on-examination of assessment records of the assessee was of the prima facie view that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prej...
Chiyoda Corporation Vs. National Fertiliser Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi134
ORDER1. This is an application by the plaintiff under S. 152 of the Civil P. C. for recalling and modifying the judgment and order dt. Nov. 22, 1991 passed by this Court.2. The petitioner/plaintiff through the present application wants that the Suit No. 910 of 1989 which was dismissed against defendant No. 1 on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the plaintiff be restored to its original number and be allowed to be proceeded with against defendant No. 1.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff at sufficient length and have very carefully examined the facts of the present case and have given my anxious thoughts thereto.4. A perusal of the record reveals that Suit No. 910/89 was filed by the plaintiff against the two defendants i.e. National Fertilizer Ltd., defendant No. 1, and SOIL India Ltd., defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 neither put in appearance nor applied for leave to defend despite sufficient service. Hence, the plaintiff became entitled to a de...
Foremost Industries India Ltd. Vs. Ram Swamp Khattar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Delhi84; I(1992)BC341; 1992(22)DRJ558; 1992RLR123
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) The decree-holder successfully obtained a decree against the appellant in a suit filed under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code. The decree provided payment of interest on the decretal amount and the decretal amount included principal and interest due up to the date of filing of the suit.(2) In execution, an objection is being raised on behalf of the appellant, who is a judgment-debtor that interest is payable on the principal amount and not on the amount, principal plus interest, which was the basis of the suit, on which the Court awarded interest. The argument raised is that the decree, which allowed interest on the amount of interest, due up to the date of filing of the suit, should be treated as a nullity, being contrary to the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in execution proceedings, the judgment-debtor should be allowed to raise this objection and necessary relief should be granted.(3) Firstly, such an objection cannot be raised ...
General Marketing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ286
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The award has a chequered past and since it is necessary for appreciating the dispute in the right perspective to relive it, let me do it first.(2) On March 4, 1971 the petitioner-company entered into a Rate Contract with the Union of India through the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi. The petitioner was to supply spare parts for the 'Terex' make of earthmoving and construction equipments for the period from February 17, 1971 to February 16, 1974. However, disputes arose between the parties and consequently an arbitrator was appointed who by his award of July 29, 1977 dismissed the petitioner's claim. Not satisfied, the petitioner filed objections. One of the main objections revolved around clauses l(c)(ii) and l(e) of the Terms and Conditions regarding Custom Duty. Since that objection is still a live-wire, let me first reproduce the said clauses. They are as under: '1(C)(II)If during the currency of the rate contract the customs authorities re...
Mahesh Chandra and ors. Vs. Kuldip Goyle and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT613
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated March 14, 1986, Additional District Judge, Delhi, on an application moved by the respondent no. 1, plaintiff in suit) under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent no. 3, who had since expired sometime in the year 1980. A separate application was also moved under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code ., for prayer that the legal representatives of respondent no. 3 may be made parties in their independent capacity, being necessary parties in the suit. The application under Order 22. Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code . was also accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condensation of delay as the above said application was moved during the pendency of appeal, preferred in the Court of Additional District Judge, against the order dated February 4, 1984 wherein the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dismissed the applicati...
Syed Nasir Ali Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT471; 1992(22)DRJ451
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India dated 6.2.91 passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.(2) The detenu was apprehended by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 21.1.91 from his residence pursuant to arrest of co-detenu Shri Hamza Nozoglu (A Turkish National) on 15.1.91, in a case of seizure of 40 foreign marking gold bars, weighing one kilogram each from a van driven by the aforesaid Turkish National. The alleged seizure of gold was allegedly effected by the officers of Dri from the said van belonging to Hamza Nozoglu which was parked outside Kailash Inn, where Shri Hamza Nozoglu was staying since 13.1.91. Shn Hamza Nozoglu was apprehended by the officers of Dri on 15.1.91 and his alleged statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded. Shri H...
Banco Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: (1992)LC573Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal preferred against the brder-in-appeal No. M.1748/BD-776/86, dated 4-6-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Extruded Sections and Shapes from duty paid aluminium ingots and billets. In the course of manufacture of aluminium extruded shapes and sections, the appellants obtained waste and scrap of aluminium which was remelted within the factory of production along with ingots and billets and was used in manufacture of such aluminium extruded shapes and sections. On 12-10-1983, show cause notice was issued under Section 11A of the Act requiring the appellants to pay the duty amounting to Rs. 32,34,394.24 on the clearance of aluminium waste and scrap generated and consumed in factory during August 1982 to May 1983 for the reasons narrated in the annexure since same was cleared without payment of duty. After considering the detailed reply to the show cause notice and submissions of...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »