Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 9 of about 108 results (0.020 seconds)Shere Punjab Silk Store Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]157ITR273(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The question referred to us by the present reference under section 256(1) relating to the assessment year 1967-68 is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of sections 274(2) and 275, the Tribunal was right in upholding the orders of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. Learned counsel for the assessed contended that, in fact, there were other questions which had been sought in the reference application and we should reframe the question referred to us so as to cover the real controversy which was 'whether penalty should be imposed in this case' As we see it, the only question referred to us is the question as to what is the limitation period for passing the penalty order. The question whether the penalty should be imposed or not is not covered by the question. We cannot reframe the question so as to cover a completely different question. The question which has been refused to be referred has to be a...
Tag this Judgment!L. Palley Ram and ors. Vs. P.K. Janardhan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT131
S.B. Wad, J.(1) An accident took place on 27-2-1978 at about 4 p.m. near Minto Bridge When deceased Jai Bhagwan was driving the bicycle and a Military vehicle No. 42615 came from behind and hit the cyclist. He was rushed to the Irwin Hospital where he died. Public Witness 2, Dr. Vishnu Kumar has stated that Jai Bhagwan died because of inters cranial haemorrhage and fracture of scalp consequent to his head injuries. The claimants who are the parents of Jai Bhagwan have filed the claim petition claiming Rs. 33,000.00 as compensation. They have examined Shri V.B. Chaudbary, Research Officer. Shri Chaudbary appeared as Public Witness 3 and Dhani Ram Public Witness 4. Both the witnesses appeared as eye witnesses and deposed to the facts of the accident. They have identified the military vehicle which knocked down the cyclist. On the evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was fully established that the vehicle No. 482615 reached the place of accident at a fast speed and had kno...
Tag this Judgment!Chanderwati and ors. Vs. Universal Fire and General Insurance Companya ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1985)ACC150; [1987]62CompCas315(Delhi); 28(1985)DLT114
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is the First Appeal filed by the claimants against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the claimants. Prem Prakash died as a result of the accident. The claimants are the widow and five children-three daughters and two sons. (2) The accident took place on 26-8-1965 in the afternoon near house No. A-4/3, on the main road of Krishna Nagar, Jheel Kuranja, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The deceased Prem Prakash was going on his cycle from Jheel Kuranja to Krishna Nagar and when be was on the main road opposite house No. A-4/3, Krishna Nagar, a truck bearing number Dlg 9242 came from behind in a great speed and knocked down Prem Prakash. The truck did not stop but speeded away from the place of accident The deceased was run over by the truck. He suffered serious multiple injuries and was taken to Irwin Hospital where he died. The claimants claimed the compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 . It was stated that the deceased was carr...
Tag this Judgment!Piar Chand Vs. Subhash Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1985)ACC128; 28(1985)DLT117
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal passed on 22nd November 1972. The appellant has suffered serious fractures and injuries due to the accident on 18.3.1965. The appellant was traveling in Auto Riksha No.DLR 5156. Another auto-riksha coming from the opposite side bearing No. Dlr 4657 collided against the vehicle in which the appellant was traveling. Both the vehicles, it was alleged, were at the very high speed. The accident took place near Andha Mughal, Subji Mandi, Delhi. The appellant was removed to the Employees State Insurance Dispensary for immediate treatment and was thereafter taken to Irwin Hospital. Dr. B.K. Vohra, PW-4 who had brought the record of the lrwin Hospital has stated that the appellant had suffered fracture of Pelvis with central dislocation of hip joint. He was under the plaster for a long time. He was given P.O.P. hip spice and he was put in skin traction. He was admitted in lrwin Hospital on 18.3.65 and disc...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Fertilizer Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC153Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., Durgapur Unit (a Government of India Undertaking) hereinafter called the appellants are the manufacturers of fertilizers classifiable under Item 14HH of the Central Excise Tariff leviable to duty at ad valorem rate.2. During the period 1976-77 and 1977-78 the appellants paid the full amount of duty on the product manufactured by them without availing the benefit of Notification No 198/76, dated 16th June, 1976 which contemplated exemption of duty to the extent of 25% basic excise duty payable under certain conditions. As per the contention of the appellants the benefit conferred by the Notification 198/76-CE., could not have been enjoyed until and unless the Base Clearance was fixed by the Coordinating Assistant Collector. It was only on 12-1-1979 that the Base Clearance was fixed and the appellants came to know that they were entitled to the refund of the duty in view of the Notification 198/...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC177Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants M/s. Madhukar Sahakan Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., filed a round claim on 19-8-78 which was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Nasik Division under his order dated 21-11-78; the same was received by the appellants on 23-11-78. They had Wed a revision petition to the Government of India against the said order on 12-11-79. Government, under letter dated 29-12-79 intimated the appellants that their remedy was to file an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector to the concerned Appellate Collector of Central Excise and not by revision. Thereafter on 19-3-80, the appellants had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector which had been dismissed under order dated 15-7-80 on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. It is against the said order that the appellants had preferred a revision petition to the Government which, on transfer, is being dealt with and disposed of under this order as an appeal before this Tribunal.2. We have heard Shri D.N. Kohli,...
Tag this Judgment!Epochemick Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC17Tri(Delhi)
1. The product is a diglycidal ether of bisphenol A. It is claimed by the manufacturers M/s Epochemick Industries, Madras, that this product is not included in item 15A(1) (i) of the Central Excise Tariff. They informed the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras IV Division that their product was not formed by condensation, polycondensation or polyaddition polymerisation reactions. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim and passed an order C.No. V/15A/30/103/77 VC, dated 13-11-1978 saying that the Chemical Examiner and the Chief Chemist, both said that the product was an epoxy synthetic resin and that it was a synthetic resin poly-condensation product. He, therefore, classified it under Item 15A(1) (i). The appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras also failed as can be seen from his order No.2316/80, dated 22-12-1980.2. The appeal before us was heard on 25-3-1985. The counsel for M/s Epochemick reiterated the arguments made before the Assistant Collec...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Kanta and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ275
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The petitioners filed a suit for injunction against the Municipal Corporation Delhi restraining it from taking any demolition action in regard to the property in question. M/s. S. D. Marker & Company Pvt. Ltd. respondent No. 4 in this revision petition filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for being implicated as a defendant on the ground that without impleading it the issues could not be fairly decided. The trial court by impugned order dated 7th June, 1984 directed the said company to be imp leaded as a defendant. The petitioners have filed this revision challenging the order of the trial court. A similar question arose before me in Smt. Tulsi Devi and another v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, in C. R. No. 615 of 1984 decided on 14th November, 1984 wherein I have observed that the question for decision in such suits is whether the show cause notice and demolition notice were served and the jur...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Kishan Vs. Prem Narain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi90; 28(1985)DLT161; 1985RLR488
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is directed aginst the judgment and order dated 20th July, 1984 of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to amend the written statement. (2) Briefly these are the facts. The plaintiff-respondent on 12th October, 1981 filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages against the petitioner. The plaintiff in the plaint has alleged that he is the owner of property No. 3089, Mohalla Dassan, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, that Har Devi, widow of Shri Ram Lal had been a tenant in respect of the portion shown red in the plan on a monthly rent of Rs. 5.56 for residential purposes, that she died in 1978, that the tenancy of Smt. Har Devi was terminated during her life time, that she left behind only one son i.e. the defendant as her legal heir and that he has no right to inherit the tenancy. (3) The petitioner-defendant in his written statement had ad...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2406Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants M/s. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. received notice dated 22-8-1980 calling upon them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 1,810.51 should not be recovered from them as Special Excise Duty payable for their clearances during 6-8-1980 to 15-8-1980 of house-hold and laundry soaps and why penalty also should not be levied for contravention of Rules 173F and 173G(1) of Central Excise Rules.2. The ground mentioned in the notice was that the appellants cleared the goods without payment of Basic Excise Duty by virtue of benefit under Notification No. 201/79 and claimed that they were, therefore, not liable for Special Excise Duty also but that they were not correct in taking up such a position. The appellants sent their reply.3. After adjudication, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta under his order dated 21-11-1980 rejected the contentions of the appellants and confirmed the demand for payment of Special Excise Duty mentioned earlier and further imposed a penalty of...
Tag this Judgment!