Delhi Court January 1995 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.
Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT396TriDel
1 This is a Stay Application filed with reference to the order of Collector (Appeals), Hyderabad, dated 3-1-1995.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturer of fertiliser from Naptha and a question has arisen whether they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 75/81 in respect of the quantity which was used during re-start up and re-activating the plant for the purpose of manufacture of fertiliser.3. It was the department's view that since the quantity in question was used for maintenance or keeping the plant running during the shut down due to technological or economical consideration and not for the actual process of manufacture of ammonia in the sense that the quantity did not result into production of fertiliser therefore they were not entitled for the benefit. However, it was their contention that this also amounted to use in the process of manufacture of ammonia as it was a technological necessity. In fact the authorities below have themselves recorded a...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shree Meenakshi Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC17Tri(Delhi)
1. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is identical, the appeals are being disposed of by this order.2. Notification No. 252/82-C.E., dated 8-11-1982 prescribes different rates of duty on fents and rags arising out of cotton fabrics depending upon the value of such cotton fabrics per sq. mt. The CCE (Appeals), Madras has in his order dated 13-12-1986, held that the rate of duty in the Notification being ad valorem has to be "linked with the value of goods under assessment and not with the value of goods from which such fents and rags have arisen which are not the subject matter of these appeals". He has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector in which it has been held that the value should be the value of the cotton fabrics out of which such fents and rags arose and not the value of the fents and rags. This is the order that has been appealed [against] by the Department.3. In the other order, the Collector (Appeals) has taken a different view and held that "for rate ...
B.K. Sharma, in Re
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ653
Mahinder Narain, J.1. Notices were issued to a number of Advocates as to why proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against them. 2. Notice of contempt which was issued by this Court to Mr. R. K. Kochhar, has already been disposed of by holding that Mr. R. K. Kochhar had not interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings, and the notice issued by the Court, was discharged on 2-12-1994. We chose to do so as we thought that in the contempt of court proceedings each individual contemner should be dealt with as quickly as possible. 3. We have heard Mr. D. C. Mathur, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. B. K. Sharma, Mr. B. K. Sharma is mentioned in paras Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the reference. The said paragraphs read as under :- 3. During the strike period, one Advocate Mr. B. K. Sharma time and again appeared in my court to lowdown me and in his loud thundering voice told me that if I did not cooperate and pass order not liked by the Advocates, I would be sent from here by ...
In Re : B.K. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3057
Mahinder Narain, J. 1. Notice of contempt was sent to Mr. B. K. Sharma on the basis of the assertions which were made in paragraph 3 of the reference made by Mr. S. N. Kapoor, Additional District & Sessions Judge, on 19-9-1994, which reads as under :- 'From amongst the Advocates, whose names figure in the complaints time and again, include S/Sh. Rajesh Chandra Sharma, Surinder Kumar Sharma, B. K. Sharma, D. R. Lakhani and R. K. Kochhar and S. K. Raizada, who have allegedly been supporting slogan shouting etc. Some young Advocates have also been supporting but their names have not come specifically in any of the reports received. 2. At another place in the same reference order, the name of Mr. B. K. Sharma figures as follows :- Shri S. S. Malhotra, M. M., also complained that the intimidation of the judicial officers, at the hands of the lawyers was increasing day by day. In this connection, he also named Shri B. K. Sharma, Adv. along with two others. His report is Annexure-G. Annexure-...
R.S. Arora Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT525; 1995(32)DRJ391; 1995RLR127
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition for quashing of the Fir No .70/1990 under Sections 452/506/392/34 Indian Penal Code lodged by one Mr.Sanjay Bhandari, respondent No.2 at Police Station - Malviya Nagar, New Delhi pending in the Court of Shri O.P.Saini, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. (2) Mr. S.K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that as a matter of fact Mr.Sanjay Bhandari, respondent No.2 was a sub-tenant and civil litigation was pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the Fir was lodged as there was dispute inter se between the parties. It. has also been argued before me that the possession of the premises in question has been handed over by the said respondent No.2 and he has made an application in the Civil Court that he does not want to press the complaint which he has filed against the petitioner and others. Even in this Court on 22.2.1993 a statement to this effect has been recorded that respondent No.2 does not want to press the matter. In...
Jasbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)Crimes698; 1995(32)DRJ602
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is a writ petition challenging the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA ACT'). The detention order came to be passed and the challenge thereto has been made in the following circumstances: (2) On the night intervening 9th and 10th of December,1993, the petitioner Along with his brother Bhupinderjit Singh Ghuman,arrived at I.G.I. Airport,. New Delhi for boarding Malaysian Airlines flight No.MH-191. After immigration clearance, the petitioner reported at the customs counter of the Igi Airport. He was asked by the Customs Officers whether he was carrying any unauthorised foreign currency or any other contraband goods in his baggage or on his person. But, the petitioner denied carrying any of them. The baggage of the petitioner was then subjected to search as a result whereof travellers cheques amounting to Us dollars 9500 were recovered. Out of t...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. D.R. Lakhani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi665
(1) Notice of contempt issued by this Court to Mr. D. R. Lakhani to show cause why action for contempt of Court be not taken against him on the basis of averments contained in the reference sent by Mr. S. N. Kapoor, Additional District and Sessions Judge, on 19 September, - 1994. Relevant part of the reference in so far as the same relates to Mr. Lakhani is at page 3 which reads as under : 'FROM amongst the Advocates, whose names figure in the complaints time and again, include S Shri Rajesh Chandra Sharina, Surinder Kumar Sharma, B. .. Sharma, D. R. Lakhani and R. K. Kochhar and S. K. Raizada, who have allegedly been supporting- slog a shouting etc. Some young Advocates have also be supporting but their names have not come specifically in any of the reports received.'(2) Mr. R.N. Mittal, who appears for Mr. Lakhani, states that in none of the reports which have been sent along with the reference, the name of Mr. D. R. Lakhani appears. (3) He has also filed a reply to the show cause no...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ419Del
C.M. Naryar, J.1. The present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction for quashing the orders dated April 1, 1989 and May 17, 1982 passed by Shri B. B. L. Hajelay, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Delhi and Shri O. P. Singla, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi respectively. These orders are filed as Annexures P-1 and P-2 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner applied to the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi for approval of their action under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') of removing the workman, respondent No. 3 herein, for proved misconduct in respect of unauthorised driving of bus No. DLP 1867 at 23.10 hours on 10.12.72 and for causing damage to the above said bus and a wall by rash driving. He was suspended in respect of this charge w.e.f. 3rd January, 1973. The petitioner management pleaded that the approval was sought on account of pendency of indus...
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT571
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioner has initially filed tile public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India regarding unhygienic, inhuman and horrible conditions which are prevalent at the Idgah slaughterhouse of Delhi. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed this court to hear and dispose of the petition.(2) In the petition, it is averred that effluents of highly pollutive nature are being discharged in drains and open sewerage. by slaughtering of tens of thousands of animals in most unhygienic conditions and in contravention of all laws, rules, regulations and norms. Even the slaughter house is running in total contravention of the Master Plan.(3) On the directions of their Lordships, this matter was heard at length. This court even appointed three Court Commissioners to visit the slaughter house and submit a detail report. The report submitted by the court Commissioners was taken into consideration. The photographs and video film prepared by them were also kept i...
Subhash Gupta Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC287Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50.00 lakhs levied on the petitioner under Section 112-A of the Customs Act, 1962, the Act for short, under the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay dt. 31-8-1994.2. Sh. N.R. Kantawala, the Id. Advocate submitted that proceedings were instituted against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners imported Steel Wire Rods duty free under DEEC scheme and without utilizing the imported goods in the export, sold the same in the market and the proceedings eventually under the impugned order appealed against. The Id. Counsel submitted that initially in respect of the same transaction, a show cause notice was issued on 8-8-1989 alleging illegal diversion of goods imported duty free, to the extent of about 3000 MT of Steel Wire Rods in which the penalty of Rs. 20.00 lakhs was levied on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and took out an affidavit and pleaded undu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »