Delhi Court May 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.
Shri Hari Exports Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(73)ELT794(Del)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Petitioner challenges the validity of the two notifications dated 25-1-1994 and 29-1-1994, effect of which is to transform Polypropylene Moulding powder/granules (referred as goods in question) as goods in the sensitive test for the purpose of its importation, though, when the value based license issued to the petitioner, no such restriction was imposed.2. Petitioner was issued with the Value Based license on 6-7-1993. As per this license, if the petitioner exports the particular goods (Cassettes) he was entitled to import the goods described in the license without any restriction as to their quantity. It is not necessary to refer to other benefits available to this license holder. After the issuance of this license dated 6-7-1993, 'goods in question' was added to the 'sensitive list', on 14-9-1993. According to the petitioner, this addition did not affect the pre-existing licensees. However, this was altered by the two impugned Notifications dated 25-1-1994 ...
Zenith Chemicals Vs. Government of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ422; 1994(73)ELT533(Del)
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition against the order of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated February 4, 1991, whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner against the appellate order dated March 19, 1990, passed by the Collector of Customs, Central Excise Appeals, Bombay, who had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector (Rebate), Bombay dated February 24, 1989, was rejected. 2. The writ petition arises in the following circumstances : 3. The petitioner is a manufacturer and exporter of H. Acid (Dye-Intermediate). Naphthalene is one of the inputs used in the manufacture of H. Acid. Before the commencement of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 both the aforesaid input as well as the end product fell under tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. 4. The petitioner at that time was availing proforma credit under Rule 56A, Central Excise Rules, 1944 as both the input as well as the end product fell under one common tariff item....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kabir Das Investment Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Del)259; [1994]210ITR898(Delhi)
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, C. J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central-I), New Delhi, questioning the correctness of the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (the second respondent). In each of the writ petitions, the assessed is Messrs. Kabirdas Investment Co., New Delhi (first respondent). 2. Civil Writ No. 926 of 1994 relates to the assessment year 1983-84. The Tribunal passed its appellate order under section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 26, 1989, rejecting the Department's appeal Income-tax Appeal No. 5886 of 1986/(Delhi) and thereafter the Department filed an application for reference under section 256(1) as Application No. 346/(Delhi) of 1990 but the same was dismissed as time-barred on August 27, 1990. The Department filed a miscellaneous application on April 25, 1991, to recall the order dated August 27, 1990, on the ground that the date of commencement for computation of limitation for filing...
Chopra Dyeing Industries Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)457; AIR1995Delhi115; 54(1994)DLT701; 1994(30)DRJ19
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) Several writ petitions were posted together and all of them were heard. The general question arising in all these writ petitions is decided in this writ petition and thereafter the principles are applied to the facts of each case separately.(2) The petitioner, M/s.Chopra Dyeing Industries is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for allotment of a plot in the Mangolpuri Industrial Area. Phase I & II.(3) According to the petitioner (for the sake of convenience I am referring the petitioner as 'he' though the petitioner is a partnership concern) is carrying on the industrial activity in a non-conforming area and thereforee the industry shall have to be shifted or closed down. There are several industries who carry on their activities in non-conforming areas, since they are required to shift their industries or close the same, Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred as Dda for short) came out with a scheme to provide them alternative industri...
Rajinder Kaur and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)186; 55(1994)DLT149
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is a petition for the grant of letter of Administration to the petitioners in respect of the properties of Shri Gurdip Singh Anand since deceased who according to the death certificate filed on Court record had died at his permanent address, C-10 Daya Nand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on6.11.1985.(2) It is stated in the petition that Mr.Gurdip Singh Anand died inter-state undinspite of due diligence and search, no Will or codicil of the deceased has beenfound.(3) Notices of this petition were duly served on all near relations as mentioned in para 3 of the petition, one of whom, namely, Mrs. Kulwant Kaur,mother of the deceased has stated that she does not have any objection if the letter of administration is granted to the petitioners. There is no opposition to the grant.The petition was also advertised in the-'Statesman' and the notice has also been served on the Chief Controller of Revenue, Ludhiana, Punjab. There has been no opposition from any of the respo...
Delhi Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Economy Sales
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)658; 55(1994)DLT39; 1994(29)DRJ548; (1994)108PLR51
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Delhi Automobiles limited has filed this revision petition against the order dated 17/2/1993 of Shri S.M. Chopra, Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming C.R.201 /93 the order dated 1/12/1992 of Shri K.S. Pal, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, vide which an application under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, Cpc, moved by the defendant/ petitioner was dismissed while the application under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the plaintiff/ respondent was .allowed and the petitioner was restrained from dispossessing the respondent/petitioner forcibly, except with the process of law.(2) It would be necessary to state in brief the facts leading to thr filing of this petition, M/s. Economy Sales, respondent filed a suit for declaration in which the following reliefs were claimed: (A)Declare that plaintiff firm is a tenant in the suit property, namely front portion of...
Sandeep Ojha Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT682; 1994(29)DRJ444
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.(1) Petitioner seeks the nullification of the condition for revalidation of the license issued to him. An 'Advance License' was issued to the petitioner on 3.3.1993. This Advance License enabling the import of goods specified in the license refers that the license is 'Against Export Order'. There is an abbreviation' Au (RE)'. The letters 'AU', it is stated, refers to the term 'Actual User'. (2) Since Polypropylene, one of the specified goods was subsequently included in the sensitive list, its importation as to the quantity was affected. In C.W.P. 871 of 1994 (Hari Export vs. Director General of Foreign Trade And Another) I have held that the impugned Notifications would not affect the license issued to the petitioner therein, having regard to the particular facts. In the said case, it is held that the respondents have not proved that the Notifications of January 1994 were in public interest, thereforee, there was nothing to override the equity in favor of the p...
Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT727; 1994(30)DRJ250
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 directed against the judgment dated 4.4.1990 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 659/89 by the Add l District Judge, Delhi.(2) By notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on 27.7.1984, Delhi Administration acquired 2123 Bighas and 5 Bighas of land in village Samaipur for planned development of Delhi, in particular for setting up an industrial estate. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation against which several land owners sought for references. The Addl District Judge has enhanced the compensation directing, it to be assessed ((r)) Rs. 25,000.00 per Bighas for the leveled land and Rs. 21,000.00 or Rs.22,000.00 per Bighas for the land in depression.(3) Several appeals were filed. A number of them have been disposed of by judgment dated 30.11.1991 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Rfa 810/88. At the time of hearing of this appeal it was conceded b...
G.F. Kellner and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT408
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) Rule D.B.This is a writ petition which calls in question the letter dated 13/05/1993of Controller of Imports & Exports whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of Value Based license was rejected.(2) The petitioner deals in exports of frozen marine products. The petitioner says that for export of the marine products it requires imported packing material as well as consumables. It also avers that by virtue of Public Notice No. 2/92-97dated 31/03/1992 (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent,value based advance import license could be claimed both on the basis of quantity and value of export. According to Annexure P-2, extract of the Public Notice, the advance license could be granted on the basis of Value Addition of 1000% against export of frozen marine products.(3) The petitioner further says that on 8/08/1992 it applied for grant of value based license for Rs-42.84 lakhs against an export obligation of Rs.3 crores.Thus claiming advance...
William Grant and Sons Ltd. Vs. Mcdowell and Compay Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)65; 55(1994)DLT80; 1994(30)DRJ105
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The plaintiff William Grant & Sons Ltd. has instituted the suit No.2532 of 1993 in this Court, seeking injunction against defendant McDowell & Co. Ltd. The plaintiff seeks to restrain infringement of copyright in 'GLENFIDDICH' label, to prevent passing off and unfair competition, rendition of accounts of profits, delivery up etc. Along with the said suit, application has been filed for interim injunction bearing I.A. No.9721 of 1993. (2) The facts giving rise to the suit as pleaded in the plaint, are that the plaintiff is a Company, incorporated under the laws of Scotland and having its registered office at The Glenfiddich Distillery, Dufftown, Banff shire Scotland. It is asserted that the plaintiff operates Glenfiddich Distillery, the Balvenie Distillery and Kininvie Distillery, a!l of which are located in Dufftown, Scotland and the Cirvan Distillery in Girvan in Scotland. (3) From the pleadings it appears that Mr. Alexander Grant Gordon, who is the Director of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »