Delhi Court April 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.
Baljit Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT212
S.B. Wad, J. (1) These appeals arise out of the acquisition of land belonging to claimants in village Malikpur Kohi/Rangpuri. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23.1.1965.(2) RFA. 386/71 is filed against the judgment of Shri Jagdish ChandraADJ, in Lac No. 415/67 pronounced on 29.3.1971 relating to Award No. 1958.Shri Jagdish Chandra, Adj, (as he then was) had relied upon his own Judgment in LAC. 434/67 Bhaktawar Singh & Another v. Union of India dated 23.3.1971.In Bhaktawar Singh's case the learned Adj, relying on the sale instance of Khasra No. 1587/1, where one'bigha of land was sold for Rs. 5,000.00, held that market value for block I lands was Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha and for block 2 landsRs. 5,000.00 per bigha. Appellants' land was classified by the learned Adj as Block 2 land and was awarded compensation @ Rs. 5,000.00 per bigha. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded only Rs. 600.00 per. bigha for block2 lands. The appellants/claimants h...
Wire Netting Stores Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC120
Mahinder Narain, J.1. The question involved for determination in this regular second appeal is that when the right to sue has accrued within the meaning of Article 113 of the Limitation Act with respect to the causes of action which were pleaded in suit No. 467 of 1968.2. The plaintiff M/s. Wire Netting Stores, a partnership concern, had filed the aforesaid suit No. 467 of 1968 for the purpose of recovery of fines which have been paid, under mistake of law, as well as the amounts which have been paid under mistake of law on account of demurrage and wharfage. The plaintiff asserted in the suit that the fact that the amount of Rs. 400/- paid as fine, was found to have been paid by them under mistake of law upon the matter being adjudicated in Civil Writ Petition No. 280-D of 1960, in which it was held that the fines paid by the plaintiff in connection with importation of certain perforated sheets have been wrongly paid. This was so stated in para 7 of the plaint. In para 8 of the plaint,...
Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT686; 1994(74)ELT795(Del)
S.B. Wad, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Collector, Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 20-8-1983. The Collector had held that the Srigopal Unit of the petitioner at Yamuna Nagar was guilty of disregarding the provisions of Rule 173(F) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and that the petitioners were liable to pay duty amounting to Rs. 10,05,1899/- and Rs. 15,377.17 under Rule 10 and the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2. The petitioner company manufactures white printing paper. During the relevant period white printing paper was covered by item No. 17 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and was liable to pay ad valorem duty @ 25%. By Notification No. 68/76-C.E. and 69/76-C.E., dated 16-3-1976 concessional rate of duty @ 5.5% ad valorem was made available to the manufacturers of white paper for the quantities of paper supplied by them to the Director General of Supplier and Disposal and supplied to other ag...
S. Piara Singh Vs. S.H.R. Properties (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: II(1992)BC131; 47(1992)DLT564
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) I have heard the parties. This is a petition for winding up of the respondent company which is based on alleged contract for supply of 5 lift flush doors to the respondent company for a sum of Rs.30,000.00. The case of the petitioner is that the price was agreed to by the respondent on their quotation, a copy whereof is Annexure X-I to therejoinder. It is also contended that a cheque for Rs. 5000.00 was also given by the respondent on 17.7.89. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation for the reasons 'payment stopped'. That means at the very outset the cheque given towards advance payment was dishonoured. No action appears to have been initiated by the petitioner against the company for such dishonour of the cheque. On the contrary it is contended that the raw material for making the said five doors and frames was purchased and the said doors were made and delivered. However, there is no delivery challan or any other documentary evidence of the delivery of the s...
Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC122; 1992RLR283
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India there is a prayer for setting aside/quashing a show cause notice dated 24.9.79. (annexure K) issued by Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and the letter dated 12.11.80 (Annexure P) issued by the office of Superintendent, Central Excise, Range Iii, Faridabad. (2) Petitioner manufactured printed cartons. They had been paying duty on these under Tariff item 68 of Cet since 1975. They submitted a revised classification list no. 29 of 78 on 15.5.78 with representation that printed carton should be exempt from duty under item 68 as these were products of printing industry and thus eligible for exemption. In support they relied on Govt. of India order in revision 2057/77 passed in the case Allibhoy Shrafolly Co. The Asstt. Collector held that benefit of exemption claim was not admissible. Petitioner (3) Unfortunately, counter affidavit in this matter ...
Narayan Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT515
S.B. Wad, J. (1) These writ petitions raise common question of law and are, thereforee, disposed of by one judgment.(2) The Delhi Administration issued a notification under Section 4(1)read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 13/02/1981proposing to acquire Land measuring Bighas 848 and bids was 09 from Village Pooth Kalan for a public purpose of construction of a supplementary drain.After the notification under Section 9 of the Act, the possession of the land in question was taken over by Delhi Administration. This supplementary drain was to be constructed for the benefit of the resident of Rohini ResidentialScheme, the biggest residential scheme in Asia. The acquired land was handed over to Irrigation & Flood Control Department of Delhi Administration.(3) According to the petitioner, the original purpose of construction of a supplementary drain was given up by Delhi Administration before the award was made and the land in question was handed over to the D.D.A. and the D....
Surendra Sehgal and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT347; 1992(23)DRJ225; 1993(41)ECC121
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) The main question for consideration in these writ petitions is whether paper converted by subjecting it to printing of colour and subsequently waxed by the petitioners, sold to M/s Modern Food Industries (Ltd.) for wrapping bread, is eligible to full exemption of duty of excise by virtue of notification No. 68 of 1976, or to partial exemption under notification No. 71 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the first and the second notification respectively) both dated 16th of March 1976. These two writ petitions, involving the same question, were heard one after the other. The same are, thereforee, being disposed of by a common judgment. (2) The goods produced by the petitioners, covered by Item No. 17 of the Tariff set out in the first Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff and the Act), were initially declared and assessed as 'waxed paper' eligible to partial exemption under the second notification. The petitioners...
Rajinder Singh Bedi and ors. Vs. Sir Sobha Singh Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT54; 1992RLR339
S.C. Jain, J.(1) This case has a checkered history. In brief, the facts giving rise to this second appeal are that flat No. 22-B, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi along with servant quarter and garage had been let out to H.L. Pathakw.e.f. 1.11 1949. Shri K.R. Bedi, father of the appellants was inducted as a sub tenant in this flat. The respondent landlord brought an eviction petition against H.L. Pathak on the ground of sub letting. In that case Shri K.R.Bedi had taken the plea that he had been a lawful sub tenant. On 11.8.1961,Shri K.R. Bedi died and in February, 1963, the Counsel for the landlord made a statement in that case withdrawing the eviction petition and stating that appropriate proceedings would be taken against the legal representatives of late K.R. Bedi who were in possession .of the premises.On 13-3-1963, the respondent landlord filed an eviction petition pleading that the appellants, Devinder Singh and widow of late K.R. Bedi were the tenants in the premises comprising the f...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Prem Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT207; 1992RLR234
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This is second appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the judgment of the Senior Sub Judge in R.C.A.No. 65 of 1975.(2) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that one Kheman Ram, son of Shib Sahaey served a registered A.D. notice under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, dated 2.1.1963, through his Counsel Mr. Raghbir Singh and Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocates, on the appellant,asserting that Kheman Ram was holding whole of khasra No. 2, situated in the revenue estate of Sadhora Kalan, Delhi Tehsil, as 'Amiedar Sardarakhati' having purchased the said right by means of a registered sale-deed for consideration. It was asserted that 15 bighas 30 bids was out of the said khasra number are a garden, arid 4 bighas 12 bids was are used as a private rasta by Kheman Ram for the said garden/grove in khasra No. 2, as well as for his other gardens. It was asserted that the rights of Kheman Ram were recognised by the Custodian of Ev...
Devang Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ592
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the point in dispute, whether auxiliary duty and countervailing duty is also payable, is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Kathayee Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, Slp (C) No. 3734 of 1984 in favor of the Union of India and against the petitioner, by which the Supreme Court upheld the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court in Raja Lakshmi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 1984(16) E.L.T. 47.(2) The Bombay High Court in Pawan Kumar Goyal v. Union of India 1990 (45) E.L.T.227 following the decision in Raja Lakshmi Mills Ltd. (supra) came to the same conclusion.(3) Accordingly, following the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the writ petitions are without merits and are dismissed.(4) There was an interim order by this Court while admitting the writ petitions, under which bond and bank guarantee were furnished. The respondents will be entitled to encash the bank guarantee a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »