Delhi Court April 1983 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.
In Re: Canara Bank, Siddharth Kumar Modi and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh B ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi116; [1985]57CompCas631(Delhi)
Sultan Singh J.1. This is an application under O. 1, r. 10, read with s. 151 of the CPC, on behalf of the Canara Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi, seeking leave to be imp leaded as a defendant in the present suit. The plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a partnership in terms of a deed dated October 28, 1976/November 5, 1977, to carry on business under the name and style of 'Tantra'. It appears that disputes arose between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs, thereforee, filed the present suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. 2. The applicant-bank by this application alleges that the partnership firm, M/s. Tantra, acting through its partners, i.e., the plaintiffs and the defendant, approached the applicant for grant of loan facilities to finance certain packing credit commitments mentioned in the loan documents, the advance was in the nature of cash a credit limit of Rs. 1,50,000 and bills discounting facility up to Rs. 1,50,000, that the plai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Supreme Motors (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)75; [1984]147ITR48(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This is an income-tax reference relating to assessment year 1972-73. Supreme Motors (p) Ltd., the assessed-respondent, claimed, inter alia, a sum of Rs. 7,359 as a deduction in the computation of its business income. The above expenditure was claimed as sales promotion expenses. The ITO found that in the earlier year the assessed had claimed only Rs. 3,454. He observed that the expenditure and disallowed the same. 2. On appeal it was contended on behalf of the assessed that the amount of Rs. 7,359 had been spent on supplying tea and cool drinks to customers and employees at head office, branch office and at the workshop. The AAC observed that the amount spent on tea and cool drinks supplied to employees had not been indicated. Expenditure on provision of tea and cool drinks to customers, in his opinion, was in the nature of entertainment expenditure. Following a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Brij Raman Dass & Sons v. CIT : [1976]104ITR541(All) , he upheld...
Bank of India Vs. Mehta Brothers and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi18; 1983(5)DRJ252; 1983RLR565
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The plaintiff, Bank of India, has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 91,58,48008 against six defendants. Defendant No. I is a partnership firm carrying on the business within the jurisdiction of this Court with its head office at 342, Naya Bans, Delhi. Defendants 2 to 5 are its partners who also carry on business in Delhi. Defendant No. 6 is European Asian Bank A.G. a body corporate incorporated in West Germany and it has a branch at Bombay. By this application leave is sought by the plaintiff under Section 20(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure to institute the suit against defendant No 6 in this Court. In reply to this application the following objections have been raised on behalf of that defendant. (1) that the leave sought for cannot be granted as by virtue of Section 120 of the Code the Provisions of Section 20 of the Code do not apply to the present proceedings ; (2) that the claim against the said defendant is bad for misguide of causes of action ; and (...
Union of India Vs. Bikramjit Nayar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi83; 24(1983)DLT89; 1983(5)DRJ144
Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree date 24-9-1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the plaintiff's appeal was allowed and his suit for ejectment was decreed. (2) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment against the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant was a tenant of the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 275.00 in respect of the entire ground floor of the properly in dispute. A part of the premises was being used for running a post office while the remaining portion for the residence of the Sub-Postmaster. It was further alleged that the premises were taken on rent prior to 1964 for a limited period of three years. The occupation of the appellant, thereforee, became illegal after the expiry of the said period of three years. The respondent had earlier filed a petition for eviction on the grounds of clause (k) of Sub section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which was di...
Shah Scientific (India) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1791DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application to the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 (as then applicable) which, in accordance with Section 131B(2) ibid, is to be proceeded with as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal (it is hereinafter referred to for convenience as "the appeal"). After notice had been duly issued, the matter was taken up for hearing today, the 18th April, 1983.2. On the appeal being called today, Shri A.K. Jain, S.D.R., appeared for the Department. No one appeared for the appellants. The Bench was shown a telegram received from the appellants in which they had requested that the case be decided on the basis of Order No. 595/81 dated 21-4-1981 of the Government of India on a revision application of Messrs. Acme Synthetic Chemicals. Accordingly, the Bench decided to take up the appeal for disposal on merits.3. The present appeal relates to the importation of "Carmine SS" which was assessed by the Customs authorities under Heading No. 32.04...
Central Railways Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1820DTri(Delhi)
2. This is a revision application to the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 13IB) against the order-m-appeal No. S/49-1041/76 CS dated 27.11.1976 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. Hence this appeal before us.3. The short point for decision in this case is that certain rubber components ('O'-rings) for under floor wheel lather were imported and the appellants sought classification thereof under item 72(.s)/72(b) ICT 1934. The claim of the appellants was rejected by the Assistant Collector as well as the Appellate Collector holding that the goods were correctly classified under tariff item 39(1) of ICT. It has been argued by Shri Badigar, on behalf of the appellants, before us that the impugned goods were specially ordered according to the specifications of the Indian Railways and in proof thereof he has brought a catalogue.Further, from the invoice we observe that the said 'O'-rings have been specifically mentioned in the cus...
People Patriotic Front, New Delhi Vs. K.K. Birla and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ545; 23(1983)DLT499; 1983RLR554
ORDER1. The Peoples' Patriotic Front New Delhi acting through its Executive Chairman, Smt. Nirmala Prasad (since then dead) filed a complaint under Sections 109, 120-B, 161, 165A, 409 and 420, IPC in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 3-8-1982 against the following persons : (1) Shri K. K. Birla, Chairman. Hindustan Times Ltd., (2) Shri Kamal Nath M.P., (3) Shri Harish Jain, Director. Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (4) Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (5) Directors of Hindustan Monark (P) Ltd., (6) M/s Kuo Oil, Hong Kong, (7) Directors of M/s Kuo Oil, Hong Kong, and (8) Shri P. C. Sethi, the then Union Minister for Petroleum and Chemicals. Smt. Nirmala Parsad was examined on oath on 3-9-1982 and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence. She died on 13-10-1982. On 27-11-1982 Shri Jaya Narain moved two applications, one that he be substituted in her place, and two the concerned file of the Department of Petroleum be summoned. The learned Magistrate was of the view that th...
Indian Tool Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1734DTri(Delhi)
1. The 2 separate Orders-in-Original came to be passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik, one in respect of "Carbide Blank and the other in respect of "Carbide Plugs and Rods" manufactured by the appellants. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, disposed of the 2 appeals filed by the appellants against the said 2 orders by a consolidatad order bearing Nos. 1278/79 and 1279/79 dated 25-9-19/9. Aggrieved with the orders passed by the Appellate Collector the appellants preferred a Revision Application to the Central Government which, in terms of section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has been transferred to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. Since there are 2 causes of action, the appellants were advised to file 2 separate appeals, which they have done.3. The present part of the order deals with only the matter arising out of the Order-in-Original F. No, V/62/(17)617/76/TA dated 24-4-1978 passed by the...
Satyanarayan Manohar Lal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1983
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT943TriDel
1. On a visit to the factory premises of the appellants, M/s.Satyanarayan Manohar Lal, on 15-1-1975, Central Excise Officers found that the appellants had been water proofing cotton fabrics manually by application of a soultion of paraffin wax, resin and other pigments but that they had not obtained Central Excise licence therefor. 12,155 metres of canvas cloth falling under Tariff Item 19-(1) as well as 7,456 metres of Ded Suti fabrics falling under Tariff Item 19-(2) were detained and seized. A verification of the Accounts book showed earlier clearance and disposal of other quantities of similar goods. On issue of showcause notice, and after adjudication, the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur under order dated 1-1-1979 held that the fabrics falling under Tariff Item 19-(1) are not liable to duty as the process had been done without the aid of power or steam, but that so far as fabrics falling under Tariff Item 19-(2), they were liable for duty at the concessional rate of 25 paise ...
Madras Rubber Factory Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC946DTri(Delhi)
1. Originally preferred as Revision Application before the Central Government, this case has been transferred to the Tribunal and is being treated as an appeal. This case has been heard today. (i) The appellants had paid the freight amount in Indian rupees but the Custom House took a different method to arrive at the freight element for inclusion in the assessable value. It converted the freight amount shown in the invoice in foreign currency to Indian rupees. Due to this conversion of the freight from foreign currency to Indian rupees, the appellant had to pay a higher amount by way of Customs duty. (ii) In computing the assessable value, the Customs House added the landing charges which is not warranted under the provisions of Section 1" of the Customs Act, 1962.3. With regard to the first ground, Shri Ignatius explained that in the present case the goods had been imported by an Indian flag vessel and the payment towards freight was also paid in Indian currency. However, the freight...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »