Delhi Court October 1993 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.
Sushil Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)545; 1994(28)DRJ93
S.C. Jain, J. (1) In this writ petition the detention order bearing No. F.5/28/92-Home (P-II) dated 12.5.92 passed against Mr. Sushil Kumar Bhutani son of Mr.Madan Lal under section 3(1) read with 'Section 2[f] of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') has been challenged at the pre execution stage. (2) Earlier also a criminal writ petition was filed by this petitioner being Cr.W.P. No. 261 of 1992 - Sushil Kumar vs. Union of India and Others - which was dismissed on 29.6.1992 as withdrawn. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Additional Secretary to the Government of India vs . Alka Subhash Gadia : 1991(53)ELT481(SC) submitted that the impugned order of detention has been passed for a wrong purpose as there is substantial and unexplained-delay in passing the said order. The order of detention is not sustainable as there is substantial and unexplained delay i...
Alta Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC228Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector ofCentral Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Briefly stated the facts of the case arethat the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of certain bulk drugsand organic chemicals. In the show cause notice dated 29-8-1986 issued bythe Superintendent of Central Excise it was alleged that they had clearedfor captive consumption Salicylic Acid Technical Grade and ParahydroxyBenzoic Acid falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff withoutpayment of Central Excise duty. They were, therefore, asked to show causeas to why duties amounting to Rs. 53,122.22 on Benzoic Acid weighing 5418kgs. and Rs. 1,79,030.63 on 31270 kgs. of Salicylic Acid Technical Gradecleared during the period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986 should not be recoveredunder Section 11A. Two more similar show cause notices dated 30-9-1986 and4-12-1986 demanding duty amounting to Rs. 9,46,417.41 and Rs. 1,71,993.53were issued by the Superintendent demanding duty on the two pr...
South India Carbonic Gases Inds. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)(51)LC245Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Carbon-di-Oxide (CO[2]). They receive impure CO[2] through pipeline from M/s Coromandal Fertilizers Limited, and purify it to I.S.I specifications and fill it in cylinders by compression. The impure CO[2]was being received by the appellants free of duty in * terms of notification No. 235/85 by following Chapter X procedure. However, they were served with a notice dated 29.9.1987 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, stating that they were not eligible to clear impure CO[2] under Notification No. 235/85 at 'Nil' rate of duty since a part of the quantity received by them was cleared at nil rate of duty as per notification No. 40/85. The notice also proposed the recovery of duty on 20,880 kgs. of impure CO[2] at the rate of Re. 1/- per kg. The appellants submitted a reply to the show cause not...
Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT360TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 29-9-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are carrying on the business of manufacturing 'Cooling Towers' and parts thereof. For the purpose of manufacture of cooling towers, one of the components required is Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GRP) product which is manufactured by the company in their factory by contact moulding in cold curing process.For the manufacture of GRP products small quantities of styrene monomer, Cobalt Naphthenate and MEKP are added to duty paid resin purchased from manufacturers.2. The appellants were called upon by a notice dated 28-3-1985 and a subsequent addendum dated 28-11-1985 to the said notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Calcutta to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as to why they should not provide particulars in regard to the quantity of the goods, namely, Titanium Dioxide, Pigments...
Sudhir Bros. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)ARBLR97(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT331
Mr. P.N. Nag, J.1. Disputes having been arised between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 out of an Agreement No. 10/EE/CD-I/1981-82 for 'Construction of 64 three bed rooms (Type III) 64 two bed rooms (Type II) and 96 Scooter Garages under S.F.S. At Pitampura, Pocket L. Dakshini I/C Internal Services', the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri V. D. Tiwari who was appointed by Engineer Member, D.D.A. vide letter No. EM 2(42)83/Arbn./3726-30 dated 12.3.1990, who after having entered upon the reference gave an award dated 31.2.1991 in favor of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 15,50,780/- along with certain rates of interest as mentioned in the award. 2. The aforesaid award dated 31.5.1991 has been filed into this Court. The respondent DDA, has filed objections by way of is 1409/92 under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award. 3. The petitioner also filed objections by way of is 12213/91 under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award. 4...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Avtar Singh Sandhu
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR1038(Delhi)
1. Heard. The assessed had filed a return on June 29, 1978, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79, inter alia, disclosing a capital gain arising out the sale of a property No. 18, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. This property was sold on November 7, 1977, for a total consideration of Rs. 27,65,827. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 22,65,827 was paid to the Land and Development Office as its share of unearned increase and a sum of Rs. 5,03,149 was invested in the prescribed securities under section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. It appears that in September, 1978, the assessed filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the extent of the unearned increase. The assessment was completed on October 7, 1980, and thereafter on November 3, 1983, the Supreme Court directed refund of Rs. 10,19,401. It is thereafter that notice under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act was issued to the assessed seeking to reopen the assessment. 3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no...
Arun K. Saraf and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)422; 52(1993)DLT307; 1994(28)DRJ400; 1994RLR25
Vijender Jain, J.(1) Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA), a body constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, invited tenders for a plot of land at Vasant Kunj-Jawaharlal Nehru University for the construction of Five Star Hotel. The advertisement-was published by the Dda of the said auction in The Times of India, The Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Hindu and Anand Bazar Patrika etc. In response to the said advertisements more than 40 forms were sold up to 22.2.1993 which was the last date. Out of these only two forms/sealed tenders were received and only one out of said two tenders was valid as the other tender submitted by another party did not fulfill the requirements of the DDA. The tender was opened on 1.3.1993. The tender furnished by the petitioner was accompanied by a bank drafts/pay orders equivalent to 25% of the tendered amount of Rs. 32.25 Crores. The other tender submitted by one M/s. Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. was not accompanied by 25% of the tender...
inder Pal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT585
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) It is unfortunate that the only eye witness is not being produced before the Trial Court by the prosecution for recording his statement for the last five years.(2) It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to produce all the witnesses on the date fixed by the Trial Court and it is no justification to say that the witnesses are not being served. The matter cannot be allowed to be proceeded like civil matters. It seems that the prosecution agency has forgotten its cardinal duty to produce prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed by the Trial Court for recording their statements. Non production of prosecution witnesses on due dates impedes and delays the Trial resulting in miscarriage of justice and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not the only case in which the prosecution is taking the plea that the witnesses are not being served.(3) Considering the fact that Trial started in the year 1988 and the only eye witness. Sh. Prithpal Singh, has not appe...
Unitron Ltd. Vs. Unicorp Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas736(Delhi)
Smt. Usha Mehra, J.1. Unitron Limited, the petitioner, herein has sought winding up of Unicrop Industries Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company') on the ground of its inability to pay the petitioner's debt. The respondent company placed a purchase order date May 3, 1988, with the petitioner for purchase of a quantity of 200 Radar Switch Mode Power Supply with power card for a total consideration of Rs. 3,70,000. As per the purchase order, St/CST was to be paid by the respondent company against Form H. In accordance with the Sales Tax Rules, Form H is required to be furnished by the dealer when the goods are purchased for export. Since in the purchase order it was mentioned that ST/CST was to be against Form H, the petitioner understood that the goods purchased were intended for export. Pursuant to the said purchase order, the petitioner supplied to the respondent company goods, vide three different invoices dated May 14, 1988, August 16, 1988, and September 9, 1988, respectively. After...
Charanjit Kochhar Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)441; 1994(1)ARBLR100(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT327
Sat Pal, J. (1) This petition has been filed on behalf of M/s.Charanjit Kochar (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it has been prayed in this petition that the respondents 2 and 3 who were the co-arbitrators in this case be directed to file original award Along with arbitration proceedings in this Court and thereafter the matter may be proceeded within accordance with law. After the award and proceedings were filed,notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties. Thereafter objections were filed by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as DESU) vide 1. A. 2456/89. The objections have been controverter by the Contractor in their reply to the said I.A. The following issues wereframed: (I)Whether the award is liable to be set-aside on the objections raised in the objection petition? (II)Relief. (2) As directed by the Court, both the parties have filed an affidavi...