Delhi Court April 1996 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.
Narender Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996RLR330
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On May 6, 1992 the learned Addl Sessions Judge framed charge u/S. 147/148/149 and u/S. 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code . against the present petitioners. Feeling dissatisfied, they have preferred this criminal revision. (2) Even the learned Counsel for the State has, I must record, found the order indefensible, The order justifying the framing of charges runs. 'ARGUMENTS on the point of charge have been heard. A prima facie, case is made out against the accused persons. Let the charge be framed accordinly.'(3) As would be borne out from the order itself there is no discussion over the facts and the law. The order does not even mention as to what the rival contentions were. It does not even provide reasons in support of the order. Merely saying that 'prima facie' case is made out cannot be treated as enough. There is thus nothing to assure application of judicial mind. I don't treat it as a speaking order. Positively it is not. More so, when facts are ...
Mahender Pal Singh Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ472
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) Despite various orders passed by us from time to time, including orders dated 15.11.1995, 29.1.1996, 15.2.1996 and 19.3.1996, no notification or award has been produced before us which would indicate that the land in Khasra No. 642/148 measuring 2 bighas and 6 bids was situate in village Sultanpur Majra, has been acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Neither Section 4 Notification, nor Section 6 Notification is produced.(2) Article 300-A of the Constitution of India mandates that 'no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.' The authority to deprive a person of his property stems from the Land Acquisition Act under which notifications under Sections 4 & 6 are required to be issued for acquisition of property.(3) As stated above, no such notification has been produced. Apparently, the petitioner has been deprived of his land without authority of law.(4) In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the respondent No. 2...
P.K. Sharma Vs. Moti Lal Nehru College (Eve.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)345; 62(1996)DLT621; 1996(37)DRJ627
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who at present is employed with the respondent No. 1 as Reader and has impugned the selection to the Office of Principal-Incharge of evening college mainly on the ground that the Selection Committee, which had interviewed all the candidates and selected the present incumbent of that office, was not properly constituted inasmuch as the Member Secretary, i.e.; the Principal Mr. Ratnakar Pandcy was not qualified to be there as on the material date had already been nominated a Member of Rajya Sabha of Parliament. University Grants. Commission (UGC) had recommended which was accepted by Delhi University, that a teacher of a college who is elected or nominated to the Parliament should not hold any administrative position in the college during, the period they are members of Parliament.(2) The relevant extract of Resolution No.638 is reproduced below:- 'THE University Grants Commission had referred this question earlier to its Advi...
Narbada Devi, Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 91(2001)DLT574
C.M. 16/96: Mahinder Narain, J. 1. By this application, the appellants seek to modify the amount of their claim of market value of the land in their grounds of appeal. The appellants have moved under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and say that they be permitted to modify the memorandum of appeal so that when this Court pronounces its judgment after hearing the appellants, true market value of the land can be awarded to them. 2. In support of their contention, the Counsel for the appellants refer to : AIR1983SC43 , Harcharan v. State of Haryana . In this case, six years after filing the memorandum of appeal, the appellants had sought to amend the grounds of appeal by claiming a higher market value. The Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal held that the best evidence of market value is the judgment of the Court and upon determination of market value of similarly situate land, the petitioner having asked for less than the market value determined by Court, they are...
A.S. Mehta and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT304TriDel
1. In all these appeals the importers filed claims for refund of import duty paid on staple pins on the ground that the goods were assessable under Heading 73.31 and not under Heading 83.01/15(2) as assessed by the Department. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the staplers mentioned in Heading 73.31 are specifically used for electric wiring, picture frames, upholstery etc. and staples for stapling pliers or machine (other than office type), while staples imported are staples of the kind used in offices and therefore, specifically covered by Heading 83.01/15(2).2. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector, hence, these appeals.3. We have heard Sh. Mohd. Ali, Ld. DR and perused the records as the appellants have asked for a decision on merits vide their letter dated 20th April, 1996.4. We find that the issue of classification of this item has already been decided by the order of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Bombay v.Jay Traders vide Final Orde...
Hotel Jazeera Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT379TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Madras dated 28-5-1986.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants had imported the items in question and claimed benefit of assessment under 84.66 as project import, but their request for registration under Project Import regulation for the import of refrigerators, ACs, freezers etc. for the purpose of starting a three star hotel at Trivandrum was rejected by the AC.3. Their appeal was also rejected by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the petition.4. It was his submission that they had produced the ITC licence with endorsement for project import concession and also submitted the project import, building plan etc. of the proposed hotel Jazeera. In spite of it their claim was rejected.5. Ld. DR stated that the appellants had not satisfied any of the conditions of Heading 84.66 and the project import regulations. This heading specifies the type of projects for which the goods could be imported subject to the conditions as menti...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT54TriDel
1. The issue relates to levy of excise duty on the re-inspection charges in respect of Electric Motors falling under Tariff Item 30. The Asstt. Collector held that re-inspection charges is eligible to excise duty whereas the Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention of the party holding that re-inspection was done in rare circumstances and the cost of the same cannot be included.2. When the matter has come-up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, they have requested to decide the case on merits. In the written submission, it was submitted by them re-inspection charges collected in some cases wherever re-inspection charges were undertaken at the instance of the customers. The charges for inspection have already been included in the assessable value and in respect of second or subsequent inspection undertaken at the instance of the customers. They have also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported at 19...
Syed Ahmed and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT494TriDel
1. Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Counsel for the applicants states that their CHA Licence had been suspended in August, 1995 and till today no show cause notice had been issued to them. When the matter had been heard earlier by the Bench in December, 1995, a direction was given to the department to take steps for issue of notice and completion of inquiry within a period of two months. The Bench took note of the fact that the continuous suspension affected the livelihood and right to carry on the business of the applicants. The learned counsel then referred to the report sent by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Policy) to the Senior Departmental Representative wherein it had been stated that unless the show cause notice under the Customs Act is issued specifying the allegation of abetment etc. against the CHA, it would be difficult to bring out the charges under CHA Licensing Regulation. Shri Sunder Rajan pointed out that this would make it clear that department has still not ...
Collector of Customs Vs. thermax Private Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT169TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-10-1985, the matter relates to the eligibility of the captive power plant under Exemption Notification No.133/85-Cus., dated 19-4-1985. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay had held that the imported machinery were eligible for assessment as project import under Heading No. 84.86 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Revenue had contended that the captive power plant was not eligible for Project Import in terms of the Exemption Notification.2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 24-4-1996 when Shri Vijay Singh, SDR appeared for appellants/Revenue. Shri A.K. Roy, Advocate appeared for the respondents.3. The ld. SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal. The ld. Advocate submitted that similar matter between the same parties have been disposed of by the Tribunal under their Final Order No. C/89/96-B, dated 15-3-1996 [reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 127 (Tribunal)] and that the appeal filed by the Revenue has...
O.P. Saxena Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)460; 63(1996)DLT76; 1996RLR293
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On February 28, 1996 Mr. O. P. Saxena, who happens to be the President of All India Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties, filed a Criminal Complaint under sections 4 and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 161 of the Indian Penal Code against Mr. Shailender Mahto a member of Parliament. On March 4, 1996 the learned Special Judge dismissed the said complaint 'in liming' holding the same as being ''not maintainable'. Finding the said order of dismissal unpalatable. Mr. Saxena has preferred this revision petition. What was it that was alleged in the Complaint (2) Mr. Saxena alleged that he was shocked to read in various newspapers a confessional statement of Mr. Mahto to the effect that he had received Rs. 40 lakhs as bribe from Mr. Suraj Manta 1, Member Parliament. Mr. Saxena claimed that it being an extra-judicial confession clearly indicating commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by Mr. Mahto and there being other suffici...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »