Delhi Court September 1999 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.
Raj Nath Gupta and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)719; 81(1999)DLT805; 1999(51)DRJ301; ILR1999Delhi503
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. [(Crl.M(M) 179/93] petitioner's seek quashing of the order dated 9.9.1992 passed by Shri Sukhdev Singh Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi directing issuance of summons against them under Section 448/506/108/182/183 of the IPC. The petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan has also filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. [Crl. M(M) 194/93] for the same relief. I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common order. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these petitions are that in an eviction suit E-752/1989, the respondent No. 2 obtained a decree against M/s. Shawl Arts for recovery of possession of the first and second floor of the premises No. A-415 defense Colony, New Delhi. On 4.8.1990, at about 9 a.m. the respondent Smt. Amar Kaur, accompanied by the Court bailiff came to the spot to take delivery of possession of the said premises. According to the first information report lodged by the petitioner Rajnath Gu...
Capital Boot House and ors. Vs. Intercraft Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(51)DRJ245
S.N. Variava, C.J.1. Courts must take note of what is happening today. Parties take forcible possession. They then seek an ex-parte injunction restraining the other side i.e. the party from whom forcible possession has been taken, from dispossessing them. Having taken possession very often they also ask the Court to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain who is in possession. Thus process of law is misused. In this Appeal Court is considering Orders passed at an interim stage. Thus all observations of this Court would be prima-facie. However facts set out hereafter disclose, even at this prima-facie stage, that the Respondent have taken forcible possession and then come to Court. Unfortunately, the Respondents have succeeded in obtaining an Order dated 24th August 1995 in its favour. They have thus managed to enjoy, for the last four years, the fruits of their illegal act. The Appeal is against the Order dated 24th August, 1995.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants and...
Sharad Yadav and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)821; 82(1999)DLT13; 1999(51)DRJ371
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The present revision petitions are directed against the order dated 1.8.1997 passed by Shri V.B. Gupta, Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No. 44/96 directing to frame charges under Section 120-B, IPC and under Sections 7/11/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners. By this order, I propose to dispose of these revision petitions.2. A short conspectus of the case is that during the years 1988 to 1991, three brothers namely the accused S.K. Jain, B.R. Jain and N.K. Jain entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves, the object of which was to receive unaccounted money and to disburse the same to their companies, friends, close relatives, highly placed officials and prominent political leaders of the country. In pursuance of the said, conspiracy, the accused S.K. Jain, allured certain influential public servants, political leaders of high status including some Ministers and Government organisations in the power a...
Kamal Dhawan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC22
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The petitioners have filed two separate petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 267/92 registered under Sections 498-A/406, IPC, at Police Station Vinay Nagar, New Delhi and pending on the file of Ms. Sunita Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as well as the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 248/92 registered under Sections 341/506, IPC at Police Station defense Colony, New Delhi and pending on the file of Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common order.2. The preamble of the prosecution reveals that on 18.1.1991 the respondent No. 2, Smt. Sangeeta Dhawan was married to the petitioner, Kamal Dhawan. The petitioners were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage, which projected a shadow on marital life of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The married life of respondent No. 2 becam...
Golden Hind Shepping (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Del)75
D. K. JAIN, J.At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company is entitled to export market development allowance in the sum of Rs. 8,54,984 or in any other sum, under section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company is entitled to deduction/relief in the sum of Rs. 98,396 or in any other sum, under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessed is a private limited company, incorporated on 28th July, 1978, with the object of carrying on the business of deep sea fishing, etc. The assessment year involved is 1980-81, for which the accounting period ended on 30th June, 1979. For the relevant assessment year the assessed claimed weighted deduction under section 3513(1)(b)(viii) i...
Bhagwan Dass Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT153TriDel
1. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant herein under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 holding that he was concerned in selling and purchasing of smuggled silver recovered on 17-5-1991 which he knew or had reason to believe, was liable to confiscation.2. The case of the Department is that on 17-5-1991, a Maruti Van No.DL-IC-3820 was intercepted at Red Fort, Delhi. There were three persons in the van namely Shri Gurbachan Singh, Shri Bhagvan Dass and Shri Parveen Kumar. The van was searched and 20 silver slabs collectively weighing 3110 kgs, valued at Rs. 21 lakhs packed in gunny bags, were recovered therefrom.3. The statement of the appellant herein as well as the other two persons were recorded. The appellant stated that he was involved in sale and purchase of smuggled silver and that on 17-5-1991, he received a telephone call at his residence from one Shri Ishwar regarding delivery of 20 silver slabs and that he was told to go to Red For...
Kashyap Automobiles and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC555
1. These appeals are at the instance of M/s. Kashyap Automobiles and Shri Raj Singh Hooda against whom the adjudicating authority passed Order No. 62/JKS (DRI)/96 dated 13.12.96. Operative portion of that order is as follows: Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I confiscate the seized car under the provisions of Section 111(d) & 11(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give Shri Umesh Munjal an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs (Rupees four lakhs only) and the payment of the duty amounting to Rs. 82,783 in terms of provisions of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order. In case he is not interested in getting the car redeemed, he should surrender the same to the Customs authorities within the same period. I also impose the following penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:Shri Raj Singh Hooda -Rs. 2 Lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only)Shri Kashyap Automobiles...
Gujarat Narmada Valley Fert. Co. Vs. C.C. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT909TriDel
1. These are two appeals - one filed by M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. against the Order No.10/93, dated 23-3-1993 passed by Collector, Central Excise, Vadodara and second Appeal has been filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 153/BRD/94, dated 15-9-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals). As the issue involved in both the appeals is the excisabllity of products coming into existence at intermediary stage of production of final product, these are being disposed of by one common order.2.1 The Appellant Company manufacture Fertilizer/Ammonia. They also manufacture 'Butachlor' falling under sub-heading 3808.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the manufacturing process of 'Butachlor', the following three intermediate product come into existence.2.2. The Collector, Central Excise, in the impugned order dated 23-3-1993, confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 82,07,861/- in respect of products 'DECA' and 'CMBE' removed during the period f...
Perfect Refractories and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC575
1. These are two Appeals filed by M/s. Perfect Refractories and M/s.Perfect Stoneware Pipes arising out of a common order dt. 15.5.92 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, involving the issue whether the crushed clay manufactured by Appellants No. 2 which is used in the manufacture of glazed stoneware pipes by the Appellant No. 2 is excisable and dutiable. 2.1. The facts in brief are that M/s. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. have three manufacturing units as under: i. M/s. Perfect Refractories, Jabalpur, manufacturing Firebricks and Fire clay and Mortars. iii. M/s. Perfect Sanitary Pipes, Bharatpur, both manufacturing crushed clay for captive consumption in the manufacture of salt glazed stoneware pipes. 2.2. A show notice dated 13.7.91 was issued for demanding duty Rs. 22,87,896.20 ps. from Appellants No. 1 on the ground that after taking into account the aggregate value of clearance of all the units for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86, the Appellant No. 1 had paid less duty durin...
Rajdoot Paints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC589Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paints. Their sales are ex-depot. Therefore, they claimed various deductions from the depot price as under :-(a) Freight from depot to local distributor/dealer - 0.53%(b) Transit insurance from factory gate to depot - 0.16%(c) Octroi - 0.30%(d) Turnover tax - 0.19% The Central Excise authorities disallowed the deductions in respect of the first two items. Hence, this appeal.2. The assessment related to the period subsequent to amendment of Section 4 w.e.f. 28-9-1996 which incorporated Sub-section 4(4)(b)(iii) so as to expand the definition of "place of removal". The amendment incorporated under Sub-section 4(4)(b)(iii) reads as under :- "a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory and, from where such goods are removed; 3. The appellants' claim for deduction was on the basis that they were incurring freight for delivery of...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »