Delhi Court April 1988 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.
Harsha Tractors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: (1991)(34)LC382Tri(Delhi)
1. This order disposes of a preliminary objection by the respondent that the revision application now transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it is barred by limitation and the application of the appellants for condonation of delay. The revision application/now appeal was first fixed for hearing on 26.10.1987. Preliminary objection as to limitation was then raised by Shri Sundar Rajan, JDR for the respondent. Shri Rangaswamy, learned Advocate for the appellants while maintaining that the appeal is not barred by limitation without prejudice to this contention agreed to file an application for condonation of delay that is how the present application for condonation of delay of 104 days in presenting the revision application/now appeal has been filed.2. At the hearing Shri M. A. Rangaswamy, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, dated 18.7.1981 was received by the appellants on 14.8...
income-tax Officer Vs. Sanak Steel Tubes (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD619(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is in appeal and following four grounds have been raised before us: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in computing the total income for purposes of surtax at Rs. 16,41,189 by wrongly deducting Rs. 1,24,200 being deficiency under Section 80J for the Asst. year 1976-77 whereas there was no such deficiency as per assessment records. It is, therefore, prayed that the income of Rs. 18,17,547 computed by the ITO vide order under Section 154 dated 15-4-1985 may kindly be adopted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in directing to work out relief under Section 80HH before deducting investment allowance. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has further erred in law and facts in agreeing with the assessee's contention that Central subsidy of Rs. 3,20,...
Flowmore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Kumar Swarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas804(Delhi)
P.K. Bahri, J.1. This civil revision has been brought under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, challenging the eviction order dated July 16, 1987, passed by Shri J. M. Malik, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the eviction order on three grounds : firstly, that the finding of the Controller that the premises have been let out for residential purposes only is perverse and is based on a misreading of the document of lease containing a term with regard to the letting purposes; secondly, that the finding of the Controller that the respondent landlord bona fide requires the premises for occupation for himself and his family members dependent upon him is also based on a misunderstanding of the evidence led on the record and, thirdly, that the landlord is also wrongly held to be not in possession of suitable alter...
Canara Bank, R.K. Puram Vs. Sanjeev Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi372; [1991]71CompCas181(Delhi)
Arun B. Saharya, J. (1) In this suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 13,13,622.34 jointly and severally against defendants I to 4, and to the extent of the sum of Rs. 16,843.90 p. against defendant No. 5, with interest thereon at the rate of 21.5 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till payment and with costs.(2) The plaintiff is a banking company, a body corporate and a nationalised Bank, constituted under the Banking Companies (Transfer and Acquisition) Undertakings Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Bank. It has its head office at Bangalore and its branches are spread throughout India. The suit relates to its branch at Sector Xii, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. The plaint is signed and verified by Mr. M. N. Prabhu. It is alleged that he was the Senior Manager of the said branch and that he was duly authorised by a power of attorney to institute the suit and to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the Bank.(3) It is alleged in the plaint that Kuldip...
Kaka Singh Chhabra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT607
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) On the last date of bearing the case was adjourned for a short date because there was an ex-parte injunction which had been issued, and the defendant was wanting the vacation thereof. The defendant has filed an application under Order 39, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code to which no reply has been filed till today, nor has any rejoinder been filed in is 1433/88 to the reply filed by the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff asks for more time. Counsel for the defendant submits that he has no objection to the adjournment being granted, provided the interim injunction is vacated. (2) In my opinion, the submission of counsel for the defendant is justified. If the plaintiff has not filed a reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 4 within the prescribed period, then the plaintiff cannot ask for the continuation of the ex-parte injunction. I accordingly vacate the ex-parte injunction, but give time to the plaintiff of file the reply to IA. 1965 '88 and the rejoinder to th...
R. Gupta Alias Raj Gupta Vs. Nirmal Nanda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT206; 1988RLR410
P.K. Babri, J.(1) This appeal has been filed under Section 39(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the judgment dated April 23, 1987, of Mr. M.A. Khan, Rent Control Tribunal, by which he dismissed the appeal brought against the order dated April 4,1987, of Mr.Ajit Bharihoke, Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the application of the appellant seeking amendment of the written statement in order to take a new plea that initially the appellant alone was not the tenant in the premises in question but a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. D P. Gupta & Company was the tenant. (2) Smt. Nirmal Nanda respondent No. 1 in this appeal is the landlady of the premises in question and she brought the eviction petition on August 14, 1984, pleading that the premises in question part of house No. C-11, N.D.S.E. Part Ii, New Delhi, had been let out to the appellant with effect from 1st July 1963 at the rental of Rs. 450.00 per mensem for residential purposes and he has without the wr...
Harnam Kaur Vs. Lachhman Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT136; 1988RLR419
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This second appeal has been brought under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order dated July 4, 1987, of the Rent Control Tribunal by which he set the aside order of Shri M.L. Mehta, Additional Rent Controller, passed on January 29, 1987. (2) The facts, in brief, are that in a petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the respondent had moved an application under Section 15(2) of the said Act requiring the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 120.00 per month. As the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was in dispute, the Additional Rent Controller deferred the passing of the impugned order till after recording the evidence. Against that order the respondent filed the appeal an the Rent Control Tribunal gave the finding that prima facie there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and passed ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kamani Engg. Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC495Tri(Delhi)
1. proceedings initiated by the Government of India revision show cause notice dated 2.3.1982 aforesaid have, on transfer of the proceedings to this Tribunal, been taken up as if it were an appeal filed by the department.2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter.The facts, in brief, are that the respondents undertook the work of galvanisation of different types of steel structural materials received from different parties on job charge basis. The Superintendent of Central Excise held, by his order dated 4.2.1980, that the process of galvanisation resulted in different characteristics and hence constituted manufacture so as to attract fresh levy of duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. In appeal, the Appellate Collector, by his order dated 13.8.1981, held that the process of galvanisation of iron and steel structural received on job basis did not amount to manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Central...
Mohan Paper Mouldings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC24
1. The issue involved in both these appeals is the classification of egg trays manufactured by M/s. Mohan Paper Mouldings (P) Ltd. In the first appeal, viz., appeal No. E/2063/84-C, the classification is under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and in the second appeal, viz., appeal No. E/2343/87-C, the classification is under First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. In the first case, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-2, Phagwara, in his letter No. C. No. CE-20/CL/Mohan/80/547, dated 11-5-1982 addressed to M/s. Mohan Paper Mouldings (P) Ltd., intimated that their product egg trays could be correctly termed as packing containers and being unprinted were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reviewed the said order and after issuing necessary show cause notice and granting personal hearing to the appellants, in his order No. 2/Review/34, dated 9-7-1984, o...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Aruna Straw Boards (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC99
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufactured paper boards falling under T.I. 17 of Central Excise Tariff. They manufactured single ply straw boards. While major portion of single ply straw boards was cleared as such, a portion of the same was used captively by the respondents for the manufacture of multipte ply straw boards in their factory and finally multiple ply straw boards so manufactured were removed from the factory after payment of duty. By issue of show cause notice the duty was demanded on the single ply straw boards captively consumed for the manufacture of multiple ply boards in their factory. The original authority however held infavour of the respondents and dropped the proceedings. The Collector of Central Excise, Guntur took up the matter in appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras who also...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »