Delhi Court August 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.
Aldoc Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC239Tri(Delhi)
1. Since these two appeals involve similar issue they are disposed of by this common order. Appeal No. 2600/89 has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 24-4-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur in which he has held that during the period 1-10-1987 to 31-7-1988 the appellants had manufactured and cleared P.P. Medicines bearing the brand name of M/s.Morgendew Laboratories valued at Rs. 10,91,272.00 which were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 as amended by Notification No. 223/87 dated 2-2-1987 which provided that P.P. Medicines affixed with brand name of a person who was not eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 1-3-1986 would not be eligible for exemption under the notification. By the impugned order the Collector confirmed the demand for Rs. 1,20,947.24 under Rule 9(ii) read with Section 11A(1) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the ground that P.P. M...
Gujarat Narmada Valley Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)LC553Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 18-3-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Urea, Ammonia, Methanol and various other chemicals. They also hold an L-6 licence for the production of "Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS)" falling under Heading 27 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1987. The LSHS produced by the appellants was used without payment of duty as "Feed Stock" in the manufacture of fertilizers in terms of Notification No. 75/84-CE., dated 1-3-1984 (as amended) and a part of such LSHS was also used by the appellants for the generation of steam which was further used captively for the manufacture of fertilisers.The Assistant Collector by his order dated 16-12-1989 confirmed 14 demands for the recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 2,55,27,664.51 on the grounds that "LSHS" used for the purpose of generation of steam not having been used as "Fe...
Gujrat Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Vs. Smt. Ramesh Kanta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi367; ILR1995Delhi735
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, C. J. 1. Admitted.2. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dt. 16-5-1994 rejecting the application under O. IX, R. 13 of the Civil P. C. The learned single Judge thought that in view of the fact that the suit was disposed of under O. VIII, R. 10 of the Civil P.C. by an order dt. 6-5-1994, the provisions of O. IX, R. 13 are not attracted to the facts of the present case.3. We are of the view that the order passed by the learned single Judge is not correct. In our opinion, the provisions of O. IX, R. 13 of the Civil P.C. are applicable to the order passed under O. VIII, R. 10. the authorities cited by the learned counsel for theappellant : AIR1981Mad258 are in point. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to dispute the legal proposition of law laid-down in the aforesaid judgments. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.4. A point has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant ought to ha...
Avtar Krishan Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR352(Delhi)
ORDER--Difference of opinion between Members.Ratio :When there was a difference of opinion between two Members of the Tribunal on a question which was not referred to the Third Member, the said question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.Held :There was a difference of opinion between the two Members of the Tribunal who heard the matter initially and only one question was referred to the Third Member. The question regarding the goodwill account was never referred to the Third Member, even though there was a difference of opinion. In the result, the question of goodwill account was never ultimately decided by the Tribunal and, thereforee, the said question cannot be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal.Application :Also to current assessment years.A. Y. :1968-69Income Tax Act 1961 s.256(2) K. Shivshankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of two asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 these two references - one at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assess...
Govind Singh Vs. the State (Delhi Administration and ors.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1520; 1994(3)Crimes333; 56(1994)DLT531; 1994(31)DRJ252; 1994RLR482
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order of respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 1st December, 1987. The order reads as under : 'THE order issued under Section 33 Delhi Police Act 1970, vide order No.37011-50/s.o./DCP/N., dated 6.10.87, against dispute over property plot No.20, In block No.24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi between Sh. Partap Singh s/o Kanwar Singh r/o 25/103, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and Gobind Singh s/o Man Singh r/o 1/1, Roop Nagar, P.S.R. Ara, Delhi. Enquiry has been conducted by ACP/S. Mandi, and finding report in favor of Partap Singh s/o Kanwar Singh. SHO/R Ara will lift the seal and the possession of the plot No.20, in Block No. 24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi be given to Sh. Partap Singh. Order of sealing passed earlier is cancelled, hence forth.'(2) This order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under Section 3...
Mukesh Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)Crimes337; 56(1994)DLT69
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Mr. S.L. Khanna, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dated 7th August, 1990. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. In default of payment of fine, accused was directed to further undergo R.I. for one year.2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under;--On 4.7.1986, Inspector Ishwar Singh (PW-5) who was a Sub Inspector at the relevant time, was present near Birla Mandir on patrol duty along with ASI Sri Kishan (PW-2), A.S.I. Shiv Nand Tyagi (PW-4) and some other constables. At about 9-10 p.m. he received a secret information that a person would come on a two wheeler scooter from the side of Gole Dak Khana via Kali Bari Marg and would go towards Mandir Marg and that he would be carrying smack (heroin).3. Inspector Ishwar Singh on recei...
Surya Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT768TriDel
1. None is present for the appellants today. The request for adjournment contained in the letter dated 10-8-1994 is on the ground that the lawyer is unable to attend today's hearing. No reason for the inability of the Counsel to appear is set out. Further the matter has been adjourned several times for one reason or another. Learned JCDR also states that the appeal has been preferred against the order extending the period for issue of show cause notice which period expired in January, 1992 itself. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the adjournment prayed for and accordingly reject the same and dismiss the appeal for default in appearance in terms of Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....
Jagdish Chand Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2253; 1994(31)DRJ78
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 25th October, 1990. By this order, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground of delay of 8 months in filing the complaint. The complaint has been filed under Section 392/304B/304/498A Ipc read with Section 34 IPC. (2) The brief facts necessary to dispose of this revision petition are recapitulated hereinunder:- (3) The daughter of the complainant Smt. Abhilesh Rani was employed as telephone operator. Sushil Kumar Mittal, accused No. 1 was her husband. Accused no.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law. In the marriage, all the necessary household goods, jewellery, furniture, clothes, etc. were given by the complainant to his daughter. It is mentioned in the complaint that accused persons used to taunt and tease the complainant's daughter for not bringing adequate goods and articles in dowry and wanted her to bring money from the complainant. Accused no.2 complain...
A.N. Chopra, Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1369; 1994(31)DRJ27
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three appeals bearing R.F.A. No. 438/68 (appellant - A.N. Chopra), R.F.A. No. 439/68 (appellant - K.N.Chopra) and R.F.A. No. 440/68 (appellant - Lt. Col. R.N.Chopra) filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment dated 25 July 1968 of the learned Additional District Judge on a reference made to him under section 18 of the Act. (2) The village is Jamarudpur and purpose of acquisition is planned development of Delhi. A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 24 October 1961 acquiring certain land in the village which included the land of the appellants in three appeals. A declaration under section 6 was issued on 4 February 1964 and the Award No. 1770 was made on 16 January 1965/ 9 February 1965. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value of the land at Rs.4,000.00 per bigha. By the impugned judgment the learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value at...
D. Mukhopadhyay Vs. Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ577; 1995LabIC39
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Here is yet another writ petition seeking the quashing of a Seniority List. The facts run as under.(2) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager ( Marketing) on September 1, 1984 in the scale of Rs. 650-1200 as a directly recruited candidate. At the time of his appointment, respondents 2 and 3 were already working with respondent No.1 Corporation having joined it earlier on deputation. It was only vide order dated February 14, 1986 that respondents No.2 & 3 were absorbed permanently with effect from January 16, 1986. On June 1, 1988, the respondent No.1 Corporation issued a Tentative Seniority List of Assistant Managers in which respondents No. 2 & 3 were shown as senior to the petitioner. It is this which has led the petitioner to file this writ petition.(3) As per the petitioner as he was directly recruited in the pay scale of 650-1200 on September 1, 1984 and as respondents No.2 & 3 were permanently absorbed with effect from January 16, 1986 and further a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »