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.
Sita Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)Crimes848; 1994(28)DRJ193
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a revision petition directed against the judgment and order of Mr.S.L.Bhayana.learned Additional Sessions Judge dated May 9,1992 whereby the order of the learned Railway Magistrate dated November 11, 1990 convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 145 of the Railways Act, 1989 was upheld.(2) According to the report of the Si Surat Singh, filed before the learned Railway Magistrate against the petitioner under Section 145 of the Railway Act, the petitioner is alleged to have abused one Mukthiar Singh, in the vicinity of East Passenger Hall of Delhi Main Railway Station on November 1, 1990. In the report, there is a reference to earlier incident of October 28,1990 on which date the petitioner is alleged to have administered beating to Mukthiar Singh outside the railway station. Along with the report statements of Ishwar Pal and Mukthiar Singh recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also filed. Both the persons in their s...
Prem Industries and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: I(1994)BC448; 52(1993)DLT284
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This first appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree of the Learned Single Judge (DalveerBhandari, J) passed on the oasis of admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) The plaintiff (now respondent) filed a mortgage suit for recovery of over Rs. 12.89 lakhs against five defendants being the principle debtor and the guarantors. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues areframed: (1)Whether the plaint is signed, verified and the suit instituted by a duly authorised person ? (2)Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action ? (3)Whether the defendants signed the documents in blank Ifso, its effect. (4)At what rate the plaintiff is entitled to charge the interest ? (5)To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to and from whom ? (6)Relief. - (3) Then the plaintiff bank filed an application under Order 12 Rule6 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that in the balance-sheet of the first defendant (n...
Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT192TriDel
1. M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on the 16th day of December, 1991. A stay application duly supported with an affidavit was also presented in the Registry on the same date. The stay application had come up for hearing before the Tribunal on the 29th day of January, 1992. The said application was allowed unconditionally by the Tribunal. Para numbers 2 and 3 which are the operative part of the order are reproduced below :- "2. We have also heard the learned JDR Shri A.K. Singhal for the Revenue. We are of the view that the applicants have a strong prima facie case, so far as the question of issuing the show cause notice, proposing to review the order of the Assistant Collector is concerned in view of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Military Dairy Farm. Accordingly, we allow the stay petition unconditionally. 3. Having re...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bombay Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT748TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is eligibility to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 179/77 Central Excise dt. 18-6-1977 of L.P.G. stoves assembled without the aid of power by the appellants Should - Ed be respondent out of duty-paid components partly purchased from outside and partly manufactured with the aid of power by the sister unit of the appellants Should be respondents at Surat.Incidentally the appellants Should .be respondents - Ed had discontinued the use of power m painting the L.P.G. stoves in their factory w.e.f. 1-6-1984.2. The appellant Should be respondents - Ed had relied upon the decision of the Tribunal It is a Delhi High Court decision - Ed.in the case of Jain Soap Mills v. U.O.I. reported at 1980 (6) E.L.T. (J 147) Should be 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J147) - Ed. before the Adjudicating Authority in terms of which the term "power" used in the notification refers to the use of power in the manufacture of goods under assessment and not to the raw material fr...
Lila Devi and ors. Vs. Raj Kumari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT33
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This is a second appeal arising from the concurrent findings of the two courts below that the appellants have miserably failed to prove that the house in question bearing No. F-11/106, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, which was purchased in the name of Sh. Hira Nand, predecessor-in interest of the respondents, is the joint property of the parties. (2) Facts, in brief, are that Hira Nand and his two younger brothers Arjan Dass and Daulat Ram with their families had shifted on partition of the country to Delhi and Hira Nand and Arjan Dass and their wives and children lived together in the house in question. The lease deed, copy of which is Ex. PW1/1 and conveyance deed, copy of which is Ex. FW1/2, were issued in favor of Hira Nand. These documents of title.clearly show that it is only Hira Nand who had purchased this property and consideration had been paid by him. Both Hira Nand and Arjan Dass had died in the year 1971. After about two years of their death, the respondents in ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Mazda Packaging Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC277Tri(Delhi)
1. The revenue is aggrieved with the order-in-appeal passed by 1d.Collector (Appeals), Bombay allowing the benefit of S. No. 32 of the Notification No. 125/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 to the goods declared in the bill of entry dated 19-10-1987 as "Multi Layer (5 layers) co-extrusion machine and spare parts thereof on the ground that what is imported is a multi-layer film blowing plant for efficient co-extruded film manufacture with enormous versatility and the whole plant cannot be brought under the purview of "multi-layer extruding machine". "From the catalogue produced it is seen that the sub-assemblies or parts imported are all essential parts of the 3-layer blown film line and except for die-head all parts have been imported. The die-head is the only part which is interchangeable and all other parts are specially designed for the system for production of multi-layer co-extruded film and the end-product cannot be produced without any one of these parts and these parts are not of any m...
Mrs. Raj Nanda Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)48ITD62(Delhi)
1. Appellant assessee by the present appeal challenges order dated 31-3-1987 of the learned Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 1981-82, inter alia, on the following effective ground: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the initiation of proceedings by the Gift-tax Officer under Section 16 of the Gift-tax Act and has further erred in setting aside the impugned order (for redetermination of market value of shares) of the Gift-tax Officer instead of quashing the same.2. Assessee in this case is an individual by status and the accounting period was the year ending 31-3-1981. The assessee sold 1,250 shares of M/s. Harparshad & Co. on 30-12-1980 to M/s. Joint Investment Ltd. at Rs. 144 per share. The acquisition value on 1-1-1964 of the said shares was stated to be at Rs. 198 in respect of 1,041 shares. For the balance 209 shares the value was placed at Rs. 100 per share. I...
Shamsher HussaIn Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)558; 1994(3)Crimes12; 52(1993)DLT375
S.C. Jain, J. (1) This accused is facing trial in a case under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for the alleged recovery of I kg and 300 gms. of charas.His earlier bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge by a detailed order dated 3.11.1992, Mr. Suhag, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the public witness, Manoj Sharma has not supported the prosecution case during the trial and that the seal allegedly used is not that of the 1.0., but bears the initials 'S.K..'. According to the learned Counsel this accused is entitled to be released on bail. He cited a decision of this Court on the bail application given by Justice A.B. Saharyain Cr.M(.M)291/92 in support of his contention that the seal which was used on the Pulinda was not that of a member of the raiding party and on that ground the accused in that case was granted bail.(2) Learned State Counsel Mr. O.P. Faizi has strongly opposed this bail application of the petitioner on the plea that all the mandat...
Oswal Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT70TriDel
1. Being dissatisfied with the classification of the subject goods namely, acrylic plastic bangles - tubes under Tariff Item I5A and consequent demand thereon and imposition of penalty the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Admitted facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Oswal Products are manufacturer of acrylic plastic bangles - tube. They are manufacturing these goods from Regenerated M.M. Monomer purchased from the local manufacturers. A show cause notice dated 24-10-1980 proposing the classification of the subject goods under Tariff Item I5A and demanding duty from 24-10-1976 to 5-5-1980 was issued to them to show cause as to why the duty mentioned therein be demanded and penalty be imposed. In reply the appellants contended the classification and in the alternative they also claimed benefit of exemption Notification No.68/71, dated 29-5-1971. However, the Collector confirmed the demand.Hence, the present appeal.3. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri R.K. ...
Sunit Engineering and Industrial Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)48ITD107(Delhi)
1. We would like to notice and bring into close focus the assessee's application dated January 16, 1992, submitted on January 17, 1992, captioned as one under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), in respect of the Tribunal's order dated September 27, 1990, which was passed in relation to an appeal filed against the order dated November 11, 1987, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as "the C.I.T. (A.)), who had the jurisdiction over the case in respect of the assessment year 1983-84, in its entirety : A. The applicant submits that the following mistakes of law and facts apparent from records have crept into the captioned order, which, it is prayed, may be rectified : The following evidence which came on the record of the Assessing Officer after the passing of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s on November 11, 1987, being in the nature of additional evidence has been considered...