Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-1991
Reported in : ILR1992Delhi1020
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This is an application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code . for issue of an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from acting on their letter dated 2nd March, 1991 whereby the plaintiff was debarred from playing cricket organized under the direct supervision of defendant No.1 in India till December 31,1991. (2) The facts in the backdrop of the present petition are as under : that the plaintiff is a cricketer of repute. He has been playing cricket in Ranji Trophy and Duleep Trophy. He has also represented India in International Test Matches. Defendant No. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act with its office in Bombay. It controls the game of cricket in India. (3) Duleep Trophy final match was to be played at Jamshedpur during the period from 25th of January, 1991 to 29th January, 1991 in between West Zone and North Zone. The plaintiff was one of the players who represented North Zone Team. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-29-1991
Reported in : 46(1992)DLT566
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the detention order dated 15.6.1990 passed in the name of the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(i) read with Section 2(F) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFPPOSA). (2) The petitioner was employed as Aerobridge Operator with the International Airport Authority of India at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. On 5.2.1990 one Ajit Singh was apprehended in the Immigration Hall and in his statement under Section 108 he stated that he was to hand over gold of about I kg. to a person in blue uniform. The petitioner who was on duty on that day was arrested by the Customs (Preventive) Officer on an allegation that he was helping Ajit Singh in smuggling gold. The petitioner in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act denied that he knew Ajit Singh and also denied having any connectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-26-1991
Reported in : 46(1992)DLT191
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, petitioner herein, filed an eviction petition against Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent. Control Act as amended by the Amend Act, 1988 for recovery of immediate possession of premises situated at plot No. 9 Block No. 159. 4, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Summons under Iii Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued and the respondent appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition Along with an affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Executive Director of the respondent company. The facts as alleged in the affidavit are that the petitioner is residing at 27, Akbar Road which is known as 9, Man Singh Road having an area of 5 acres on which a two-storeyed building has been constructed. There are 30 large size rooms in that bungalow besides servant quarters numbering about 20 and garages etc. and the petitioner has more than three rooms in her exclusive p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-22-1991
Reported in : 46(1992)DLT403
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the detention order dated 15.6.1990 passed in the name of the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(i) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA). (2) The petitioner was employed as Aerobridge Operator with the International Airport Authority of India at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. On 52.1990 one Ajit Singh was apprehended in the Immigration Hall and in his statement under Section 108 he stated that he was to hand over gold of about I kg. to a person in blue uniform. The petitioner who was on duty on that day was arrested by the Customs (Preventive) Officer on an allegation that he was helping Ajit Singh in smuggling gold. The petitioner in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act denied that he knew Ajit Singh and also denied having any connection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-23-1991
Reported in : (1992)(59)ELT604TriDel
1. The appellant have challenged the correctness and validity of the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-12-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi by which he has rejected the appeal of the appellant which had arisen before him as a result of remand by the CEGAT, New Delhi vide Order No. A-397/89 dated 27-9-1989.2. The facts of this case are that the Preventive Officers of the Customs, Kanpur noticed an advertisement in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' Kanpur dated 1-6-1986 advertising for sale of an Akai VCP alongwith national Video Camera. The officers visited the house of the advertiser, the appellant, on 11-6-1986 and searched the same under search warrant. He was not in his house at the time of the search and the search warrant was executed on his wife Smt. Kira Awasthi in presence of two independent witnesses. On search, goods of foreign origin, valued at Rs. 41,000/- as mentioned in panchnama/recovery memo dated 11-6-1986 were recovered. His wife, on demand, could not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-11-1991
Reported in : 1991(21)DRJ249
Usha Mehira, J.(1) Plaintiffs, Shri M. P. Matfaur & Others are stated to be allottees of quarters constructed at Hari Nagar, bearing No. 1 to 27 &staff; quarters at G. T. Road, Delhi bearing Nos. 28-.072 and 74 to 104.These quarters are in Delhi Transport Corporation Staff Colonies mentionedabove. Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the GOVT. of India SubsidisedHousing Scheme for Industrial Workers constructed 300 houses known as' Integrated Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers and Economically Weaker Sections of the Community.' The construction was started in the year 1962-63 and completed in the car 1965-66. Total costs incurred workedout to Rs. 3504 Lacs, out of which, a sum of Rs. 6.25 Lacs andR', 156 Lacs were provided by the Central Government as loan and subsidy to cover the cost of construction.(2) The houses consisted of small two rooms and regular two roomsquarters. There were about 100 small two rooms quarters and 200 regular rooms quarters. The allotment was to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-04-1991
Reported in : (1991)(37)LC604Tri(Delhi)
1. These three appeals involve consideration of common questions and were heard together. They are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order. The details of the three cases relevant for our purposes are as underAppeal Date of Show Period Amount of duty Date of orderNo. Cause Notice covered(a) 2464/86 02.02.1985 12.12.1984 Rs. 22,62,373.70 24.12.1985Deccan 15.04.1985 to(b) 2542/87 18.12.1985 28.11.1984 Rs. 13,11,346.42 29.10.1986Salem to(c) 2543/87 13.06.1985 08.04.1985 Rs. 13,84,362.00 29.10.1986Sakthi to 2. The facts relevant for determination of the dispute in the first appeal are that Range Officer, Central Excise, Karur, learnt that the appellants had erected two coal fired boilers and were producing steam, an excisable commodity falling under item 68 of the Central Excise tariff and that the steam so produced was being released through pipe line to sugar factory of M/s. Deccan Sugars of Abhhari Ltd. (DS). The Range Officer discovered that the central excise duty payable on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Aug-20-1991
Reported in : (1992)(37)ECC143
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his detention in pursuance of an order dated 24th of August 1990 passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, specially empowered officer of the Central Government, under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner is a foreigner. He is holder of Omani passport No.577443. The impugned order of detention was served upon him along with grounds of detention and documents in support thereof while he was already in custody in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi on 24th of August 1990.3. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that on 10th of March 1990, the petitioner arrived at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi by Gulf Airways flight No. GF 0074. He walked through the Customs Green Channel. He was intercepted at the exist gate of the Arrival Hall. His personal search revealed that 10 gold biscuits of 10 totals each were concealed in each of the slippers (chappals) that he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jul-25-1991
Reported in : (1992)40ITD560(Delhi)
1. Four cross appeals - two by the assessee and two by the revenue for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 and one cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and export of ready-made garments. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-84 the Income-tax Officer noticed payment; to M/s Ashok Embroidery and M/s U pkar Garments amounting to Rs. 66,729 and Rs. 25,639 respectively. Assessee produced bills in support of the claim of the expenditure in respect of M/s Ashok Embroidery. A confirmation letter was also furnished.However, in the case of M/s Upkar Garments, assessee could not file any confirmation letter. The Assessing Officer made inquiries in respect of these two concerns and it was found that no such concern existed at the given address. Enquiries were also made from the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-10-1991
Reported in : AIR1992Delhi53
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court dated 27th April, 1984 (reported in AIR 1984 Delhi 413. By the said judgment, writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the legality of the decision of the Government in dropping a scheme for allotment of land in Delhi to non-resident Indians, living abroad, were dismissed. The petitioners feeling aggrieved have filed the present appeal. 2. The facts necessary for purposes of decision of the present appeal are that the Central Govt. announced a scheme in early 1978 for allotment of residential plots to nonresident Indians living abroad. The objective of the scheme was to facilitate the nonresident Indians living abroad to build residential houses in India and thereby satisfy their natural urge to own property in their own country. The scheme was introduced in Delhi on an experimental basis. Non-resident Indians living abroad, who did not own res...
Tag this Judgment!