Delhi Court March 1994 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.
Jai Ashapura Body Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT335TriDel
1. The applicants have filed the present application for condonation of delay of about 135 days in filing of their appeal against the order dated 13-7-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise.The applicants have declared that the order appealed against was received by them some time in the fourth week of July, 1990. Their appeal against the said order was filed in the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal on 11-3-1991.2. Appearing on behalf of the applicants Shri E.G. Dave, Consultant stated that the applicant is a poor man knowing only Gujarati. He added that being a resident of a remote area of the border district of Kutch the applicant had approached the concerned association for guidance in regard to filing of the appeal since, the association had been assisting its members in other identical cases. He stated that the delay in filing of the appeal was mainly on account of the poor monetary condition of the applicant. He pleaded for the condonation of delay on the gr...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gadgets India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT835TriDel
1. Shri R. Santhanam, ld. advocate submits that the question involved herein these appeals is regarding inclusion of value of parts of 'Headgears' for the purpose of computing the aggregate clearances under Notification No. 175/86. The Headgears are liable to nil rate of duty under Tariff itself. The assessee's contention is that by virtue of Ex-planation-m to the said Notification No. 175/86 value of specified goods which are used as inputs in the manufacture of final specified goods is not required to be included in computing the aggregate clearances "of all excisable goods under the said Notification.2. Department's contention on the other hand, as strongly reiterated by the ld. SDR, Shri B.K. Singh, is that the Explanation-IE in respect of inputs would come into play only if the final goods manufactured out of such inputs are cleared under the Notification No. 175/86. Since it is admitted to the assessee herein that the final goods i.e. Headgears are not being cleared under the No...
The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Oriental Insura ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1117; 54(1994)DLT281; 1994(29)DRJ82; (1994)107PLR11
Sat Pal, J.(1) This is an application filed on behalf of the defendants under Order 19 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code and in this application it has been prayed that the applicants should be permitted to cross examine the witnesses of die plaintiffs. (2) On 12th December. 1991, the defendants despite service did not appear before the Court and accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. On the said date. the plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavit and was directed to file the ex-parte evidence by way of affidavits within eight weeks. Meanwhile, on 10th April, 1992. the plaintiff sought the permission of the Court to lead evidence by examining the plaintiff in Court instead of filing affidavit by way of ex-parte evidence. The permission was granted and the case was fixed for 24th November, 1992 for ex-parte evidence. Instead of examining the witnesses in the Court, learned counsel turn the plaintiff wants to rely on title aff...
Jai Inder Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: 1994(29)DRJ224
(1) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order (AnnexureP-6) dated 7.12.1992 dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 10.12.1992 (AN) under section 11(2) of B.S.F. Act, 1968.read with Rule 177ofB.S.F. Rules, 1969 on the ground that the petitioner has overstayed from leave without any reasonable cause.(2) Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the fact that though the order is dated 7.12.1992 but the issuing authority has put the date 11.12.1992 under his signature.(3) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice (AnnexureP-5) vide which the petitioner was asked to submit his reply before 10th December, 1992 is dated 27.11.1992 but the same was dispatched by registered post on 16.12.1992 as per the entry made on the registered envelope in which it was dispatched. In other words the order of dismissal dated 7.12.1992 (Annexure P-6) was passed prior to the dispatch of the show cause notice (Annexure P-6) on 16.12.1994 even withou...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Mithlesh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1054; 1994(28)DRJ641
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Has Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code been repealed? This is the short question. It has arisen because the learned Magistrate thought it to be so and as such discharged the accused. Unfortunately even the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State lent no helping hand and rather conceded that the provision really stood repealed. The State has now come in revision. (2) Though the learned Magistrate has not referred to the so-called repealing Act, obviously he had in his mind the Repealing and Amendment Act of 1988 (Act 19 of 1988). It appears, though again not specifically spelled out in the impugned order that the learned Magistrate thought that Act No.46 of 1983 relating to Chapter XXA(having only one section namely, 498A) stood repealed by Act 19 of 1988. It is far from so. I need not burden the order by reproducing Sections 3 and 4 of Act 19 of 1988. Suffice to say that their combined reading would go to show that some Amending Acts as shown...
Ratandeep Shanti Syam Educational and Professional Trust and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1119; AIR1995Delhi6; 54(1994)DLT277; 1994(29)DRJ324
Sat Pal, J. (1) Both these applications have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedures. Since the relief claimed in the applications is the same, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order.(2) In is 12434/92 it has been prayed that defendants be restrained from selling the prospectus 'Fashion' and giving further advertisement with regard to 'International Centre for Fashion Studies Affiliated to the Clothing and Footwear Institute CFI-London (U.K.)'. This application came up for hearing on 12th (a), 3 October, 1992 and on that date an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the name of CFI-London, U.K. in their prospectus. The defendants were, however, given liberty to use the said name in case they had been affiliated by due authorisation with the said Institute.(3) In is 6685/93 it has been stated that the plaintiff has now obtained the copyright...
Wimco Ltd. Vs. Sidvink Properties (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas610(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT260
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This petition has been brought under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking a winding up of the respondent-company on the ground that the respondent-company has neglected to clear its debt despite statutory notice.2. The facts, in brief, are that one Mr. A. N. Prasad was an employee of the petitioner-company and was one of the directors of the respondent-company and vide leave/license agreement dated July 22, 1987, Flat No. L-27 located on the first floor in Kailash Colony, New Delhi, was taken for the residence of Mr. Prasad from the respondent-company by the petitioner-company for a limited period. Under the terms of said agreement Rs. 3,00,000 were given by the petitioner to the respondent-company as a security deposit which was not to bear any interest and was to be refunded on vacation of the flat. Vide term No. 7 in the agreement, Mr. Prasad has also taken a personal liability for refund of the said amount and had agreed that the said amount cou...
Janki Dass Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2175; ILR1994Delhi392
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The family of Janki Dass comprised of wife, a son, three unmarried daughters and a married daughter. He was a tenant in a portion of a House No. B-192, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. Pyare Lal was his landlord. Jai Kishan is son-in-law of Pyare Lal. 2. In Feb. 1989 Janki Dass after locking the house left for some unknown destination. On 15th Aug. 1989 when Janki Dass met pyare Lal and Jai Kishan he was told to vacate the house as the same was lying unoccupied and locked. Janki Dass expressed some difficulty and stated that he will vacate the house after some time. Pyare Lal told him that sometime back police from Raxsol had come in his search as they had found two dead bodies in a hotel in Raxsol and the said dead bodies were of his wife and daughter. Janki Dass became nervous and said that the dead bodies of his three children were also buried in his house. Janki Dass was taken to the Police. He is alleged to have made a disclosure statement that he can get the bodies of his...
Mahesh Chander Dewan and anr. Vs. Kanti Chander Dewan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1085; 54(1994)DLT244; 1994(29)DRJ328; (1994)107PLR61
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Two out of three plaintiffs have come up in revision feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.5.1992 of the trial court directing their application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code proposing transposition of plaintiff No,3 as a defendant to be dismissed.(2) The three plaintiffs are real brothers. It appears that they had filed a suit for issuance of an injunction patenting their possession over the suit property. During the pendency of the suit the defendant No.1, none-else then.the father of the plaintiffs', expired. The plaintiffs thereupon moved an application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code proposing to bring on record their sister i.e. a daughter of the deceased,the other L.R s.i.e. the sons being already on record. At this point of time the plaintiff No.3 made a statement dated 21.4.1992 wherein though he agreed to stand by the case set out by the three plaintiffs jointly in the plaint yet he proceeded to state:- 'I have made the above state...
Kure Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)7; 54(1994)DLT82; 1994(29)DRJ83
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought allotment of a developed plot of the size of 400 square metres at the rates prevalent in the year 1985-86. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that the offer by letter dated 1 November 1992 (page 17, the date wrongly written as 20.4.90) by the respondent Delhi Development Authority be modified both in regard to the area and the rate offered, and that the petitioner be offered rate prevailing in 1985-86 respecting semi-developed plots. However, we find that in this letter dated I November 1992 the petitioner has been offered a plot of land measuring 256.25 square metres on perpetual leasehold basis in Rohini Residential Scheme and it is stated that the size of plot measuring 400 square metres which was earlier allotted to the petitioner was not available. The petitioner has been asked to pay price of this plot at the rate of Rs. 1650.65 per square metre. A Full Bench of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »