Delhi Court November 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 1 of about 23 results (0.021 seconds)Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. Superintendent, Central Excis ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT642(Del)
Sachar, J.1. The petition raises the question - whether the goods which are exported under bond are liable to payment of excise duty as demanded by the respondents/Central Government or are totally exempt as maintained by the petitioner 2. The petitioner company carries on the business of manufacturing and dealing with Aluminium. Excise duty is imposed on Aluminium under Tariff item 27. The petitioner ever since 1969 has exported various quantities of Aluminium without payment of duties of excise. The said exports were made under a bond given by it under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules. However, by the impugned show cause notice of 31-10-1979 the petitioner has been asked as to why it should not be required to pay the duties for the period 17-5-1969 to 23-6-1979 on the aluminium products exported during the period. The amount of Excise duty claimed is on the differential duty as between the Central Excise duty livable under Tariff Item 27 and the Government of India Notification No...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab National Bank Vs. Union of India and Two ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas842(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi84
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) The dispute in this suit is between the Punjab National Bank, a Banking Company nationalised under the Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970, and M/s. Atherton West and Co. Ltd. Kanpur, a public company whose management' was taken over by the Central Government by an Ordinance known as 'The Laxmirattan and Atherton West Cotton Mills' (Taking over of Management) Ordinance No. Ii of 1976 (now Act No. 98 of 1976).(2) The relevant facts are that M/s. Atherton West and Company Limited, a limited company was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of textiles at Kanpur (hereinafter called the Company). The Company had taken credit facilities from the plaintiff Bank against hypothecation and pledge or its goods. On the coming into force of the Ordinance No. Ii of 1976 the Custodian of the Company under a threat of prosecution obtained possession of the pledged and hypothecated goods and sold the same. The value of the hypothecated pledged goods acc...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Indian Co-operative Unio ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1982]137ITR108(Delhi)
Goswamy, J. 1. This order will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 130 to 134 of 1972 as they arise out of a common order and common questions of law have been referred to this court. 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for opinion of this court at the instance of the Additional Commissioner, Income-tax, Delhi: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income derived by the assessed from running the business of Central Cottage Industries Emporium handed over to it by Government under an agreement dated October 13, 1952 was income derived by the society engaged in a cottage industry within the meaning of section 14(3)(i)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or section 81(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the case may be 2. Was the Tribunal right in exempting from tax the business income of the assessed derived from running the Cottage Industries Emporium handed over to it by t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Devi Chaat Bhandar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]48STC51(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. This sales tax reference is concerned with a dealer whose business is the preparation and sale of halwai preparations and chaat, etc. For the period 1972-73, the dealer was assessed by orders dated 31st October, 1974; the chaat preparations were taxed at the rate of five per cent as against the halwai's preparations at two per cent. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, it was contended that by virtue of the notification dated 16th August, 1962, articles ordinarily prepared by the halwais dealing exclusively in such articles were taxable at the rate of two per cent and chaat was a preparation ordinarily prepared by halwais. The contention was not accepted. 2. A revision petition to the Commissioner of Sales Tax also failed. On a second revision, the First Additional District Judge, Delhi, held that the type of preparations made by the dealer showed that he was dealing exclusively in halwai preparations. The assessed was, thereforee, held to be a halw...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Vs. Rashmi Electricals
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]47STC207(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. This is a sales tax reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax raising the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty can be imposed under section 11(3a) of the Act in the event of default in the payment of tax under section 10 of the Act ?' 2. The question arises because of facts which are really to be found in the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 4th January, 1973. Under the scheme of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, which was applicable at the relevant time, a dealer was required to furnish quarterly returns accompanied by a receipt showing payment in a Government treasury or the Reserve Bank of India. A provision was also made 'that the payment of tax could be made by cheque in which case no receipt accompanied the return. In the first quarter of the year 1971-72, the dealer tendered a cheque for Rs. 821.63 along with his return. On the dishonour of the cheque, a penalty of Rs. 4,000 was im...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1981CriLJ514
ORDER1. The petitioner herein Madan Lal was convicted for an offence under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- by Shri J. D. Kapoor, metropolitan magistrate, Delhi. In default of payment of fine he was further awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction and the sentence have been upheld by Shri J. D. Jain (then Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi) vide his judgment dated January, 16, 1978. 2. The prosecution allegations were that on August 4, 1976, at about 5.30 p.m. Food Inspector M. L. Chawla accompanied by another Food Inspector M. L. Sharma visited the petitioner's shop. They found 20 litres of milk contained in the drum bearing the inscription 'cow's milk.' After disclosing his identity, Food Inspector Chawla purchased 660 ml. of milk as sample for analysis on payment of Rs. 1,30 P. as its price vide the receipt Exhibit P.A. Prior to the payment of p...
Tag this Judgment!B. Chawla and Sons Vs. Bright Auto Industries
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi95; 19(1981)DLT323; 1981RLR373
O.N. Vohra, J.(1) The short point arising in this appeal against the judgment dated December 24, 1976 of M. S. Joshi, J. is : Whether the design of M/s. B. Chawla & Sons, hereinafter referred to as the appellants in respect of mirror registered at No. 139585 in class I under the Indian Patents & Design Act, 1911 (the Act), on February 28, 1972, is a 'new or original' design. (2) M/S. Bright Auto Industries, hereinafter referred to as the respondents, engaged in manufacturing of various articles including rear view mirrors, prayed for cancellation of the aforesaid design of the appellants under section 51A of the Act contending that the design of the appellants was not a new 325 design and that it had no originality about it in that such designs were common in the market and the appellants had made a false claim to be the originators of the design before the controller of Patents & Designs to obtain the impugned registration. The grievance is that they were hindered in their trade by th...
Tag this Judgment!Harkishan and ors. Vs. Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT138
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) The Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It owned a vast area of land in Bahapor, which is a village situated within the District of Delhi a little beyond, the Okhla headwords as one goes south. (2) The society had owned this land since many decades. I was told that, originally, it was a gift to a Christian religious order made either by a Mughal emperor or a European princess. The record does not indicate the origin of the. softy's title, but there is no dispute that it was, the owner. (3) For generations the land was occupied by tenants. There were different tenants on different portions of the land. They paid rent at the rate of 3 annas. 4 pies per bigha per annum, which was also the rate of land revenue assessed on the land The society, however, did not, in fact, pay any land revenue because it was remitted (maufi). It has been proved, and is not now disputed, that the tenants had rights of occupanc...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Machine Well Industries and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas830(Delhi)
G.R. Luthra, J.1. The present suit is for recovery of Rs. 1,51,717.39 on the assertions which are briefly as follows : M/s. Machine Well Industries, defendant No. 1, is a partnership firm. The said firm on February 27, 1963, through its partners, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, approached National Bank of Lahore Ltd., for grant of cash credit facility against the pledge of movable properties and overdraft facility against documentary bills. That request was accepted and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were afforded the aforesaid facilities at the Jangpura branch of the said bank, on execution of loaning documents. 2. On May 1, 1964, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 executed fresh loaning documents in favor of the said bank because the balance in the account of the defendants exceeded original sanctioned limit. On July 8, 1964, the plaintiff bank gave fresh overdraft facility to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to the extent of Rs. 30,000 on the hypothecation of machinery and stocks in trade belonging to the said defend...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Prakash Vs. Jean Conea
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1981RLR152
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The question for decision is : What is the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioners-landlords filed an application for eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) rsad with Section 25-B of the Act which was dismissed by the Controller on 29th April, 1978. An appeal filed before the Rent Control Tribunal on 3rd July, 1978 was dismissed on 10th January, 1980 on the ground that no appeal was maintainable under Section 25-B(8) of the Act. The petitioners applied for certified copy of the Controller's order on 11th January, 1980 and it was ready on 27th February, 1980. The present revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act was filed on 17th May, 1980. An application C.M. No. 1724 of 1980) was also filed by the petitioners under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act praying that the time spent for prosecuting the appeal before the Rent Control Trib...
Tag this Judgment!