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.
M.N. Arora Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)ARBLR348(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT70
N.C. Kochhar, J.(1) Mr. M.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent/ D.D A. does not oppose this petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act in regard to the disputes mentioned in para 5 of the petition except those mentioned in clauses (d), (i) and (j). It is stated that the material lying at the spot for which the claim was being made by the petitioner in clause (d) has already been removed by the petitioner from the spot and as such, no dispute subsists in this regard. This position is accepted by Mr. P.C. Markanda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who also admits that after- taking joint measurements of the work done by the petitioner, the measurements recorded by the D.D.A. have been accepted as correct by the petitioner. He gives up the claim mentioned in clause (d) of para 5 of the petition. (2) Mr. Jain states that disputes in regard to the sum of Rs. 15,000.00 claimed by the petitioner on account of counsel fee and expenses in preparation of this ease cannot ...
Chandro Devi and ors. Vs. Jit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC467
S.N. Sapra, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by appellants under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order dated August 22, 1975 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehli.2. Smt. Chandro Devi, appellant No. 1 and appellants 2 to 6 are the unfortunate widow and children respectively of deceased Bhartu. The facts in brief are as under Shri Bhartu son of Shri Shera was residing in village Teha Tehsil Sonepat, Haryana along with his family. On the night of 7/8th July, 1968 Shri Bhartu now deceased, was coming in motor truck No. PNF-8204 driven by Jit Singh respondent as owner of his goods consisting of vegetables from his village to Subzi Market, Delhi on G.T. Road. When the truck was near Mile Stone No. 14 on Grand Trunk Road another truck bearing registration No. PNQ-2409, being driven by respondent Such a Singh, was coming from Delhi and both the vehicles collided with each other and over-turned resulting into injuries t...
Collector of Customs Vs. Modi Zerox Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT619TriDel
1. The respondents are manufacturers of Zerox machines etc. They were issued a show cause notice on 12.12.1985 alleging that since they had a joint-venture agreement with M/s. Rank Xerox, U.K., who held 40% of the paid-up capital of the respondent company and since the respondents were required to pay M/s. Rank Xerox a lumpsum fee of Rs. 87.87 lacs as engineering fee for ancillary development and royalty at the rate of 5% on the net ex-factory price minus the cost of imported components etc.towards the technical assistance and since the respondents had been permitted to use the trade-mark name 'Xerox', the invoice value of the goods imported by the respondents from their foreign collaborator (M/s.Rank Xerox)/their associates was proposed to be loaded by 2% under Rule 8 (relating to best judgment assessment) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 read with Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents gave their reply. The Assistant Collector was not satisfied and by issue o...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC83
1. In this case the facts are that as per show cause notice issued to the appellants on 1.6.79, the respondents were provisionally allowed a credit of duty Rs. 2,71,028.16 on 5019.04 qtls of free sale sugar, calculated to be excess production, under Notification No. 108/78-C.E., dated 28.4.78. The department, however, found on examination of the factory records that the respondents had cleared the said free sale sugar on payment of duty of Rs. 1,24,095.76 only. It thus appeared that the respondents had taken a credit of Rs. 1,46,932.40 in excess of the amount actually paid by them and they were therefore required to show cause why this amount should not be debited to their Personal Ledger Account.2. Reply to this show cause notice was sent by the respondent on 23 July, 1979. On consideration of this reply a further notice dated 22-1-1980 was issued to the respondents that the differential amount recoverable from them appeared to be Rs. 1,48,744.34 instead of Rs. 1,46,932.40 as intimat...
Prem Chand Goel Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)29ITD145(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals by the asses-see and the revenue arising out of an assessment for gift-tax made on the assessee. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the material placed before us.2. The facts are that the assessee made a gift of a house No. B-3/ 13, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi on 19-5-83. The said house is built upon a plot of land measuring 450 sq. yards. It is a leasehold land from the Delhi Development Authority and admittedly according to the terms of the lease 50 per cent of the unearned increase in the price of the land has to be paid to the Delhi Development Authority before the DDA will permit a transfer of the leasehold rights. In the gift deed the valuation of the property was shown as Rs. 2 lakhs and stamp duty and registration charges were paid accordingly. The assessee filed a return declaring the value of the gift at Rs. 2 lakhs. The GTO referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer, who determined the value of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Chawla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Del)65; [1989]177ITR299(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. This application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax is for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law for the decision of this court. 2. The brief facts are that Lal Devi's husband purchased 116, golf Links, New Delhi. On his death and by his will, his widow, Lal Devi was given a life interest in the said property. 3. The relevant assessment year is 1980-81. The assessed claimed that the income from the abovementioned property should be assessed under the head 'Income from house property'. But the Income-tax Officer assessed the said income under the head 'Income from other sources', as he held that she was not the owner, having only a life interest. 4. The assessed appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and relied on a decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of J. L. Sawhney. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relying...
Parakadavathu Mohamed Kunji Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT157; 1988(15)DRJ85; 1988(36)ELT403(Del); 1988RLR304
1. The petitioner who himself is a detenu came to be detained pursuant to a detention order passed under Section 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act of 1974 by the Government of Kerala with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting smuggled goods. 2. This detention order was passed pursuant to an investigation into an incident dated 15th September 1983 when two truck loads of contraband foreign goods were caught by the Customs authorities and on investigation some persons were found involved in the acts of smuggling, one of which is the detenu petitioner who immediately after the incident fled the country and went abroad. The petitioner was, however, arrested pursuant to this detention order on 20th August 1987 when he was taken into detention. The detention order actually was passed on completion of the investigation on 15th June 1984, it app...
H.P. Vaid Vs. S.K.R. Bhandari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT7
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 21st September, 1977 whereby composite order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant herein for deposit of rent at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month as well as order of eviction on failure to deposit within 30 days was upheld. The appellant, who appears in person, states that the respondent Sh. S.K.R. Bhandari, who was the original landlord, has sold the suit premises to employees State Insurance Corporation on 19th September, 1986. The Employees State Insurance Corporation has accepted the appellant as its tenant and the appellant has in turn agreed to pay and has been paying rent @ Rs. 100.00 per month to the new landlord. The Employees State Insurance Corporation has, however, not entered appearance in this second appeal. (2) Appellant submits that since the property in question has changed hands and the original respondent is no more the owner and landlord of t...
C.C.E. Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(36)ELT124TriDel
1. The first question that arises for decision in this appeal alongwith cross objection is whether the 'respondents were entitled to the deduction of Fertilizer Pool Equalisation Charges (FPEC) between 18-7-1975 to 7-8-1975 and, if so, how much. The second question that is to be decided, if necessary, the demands raised against the respondents were barred by limitation. The Assistant Collector held that they are not entitled to any deduction of FPEC whereas in appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the deduction of Rs. 335/- for the purpose of assessable value.2. The facts that led to these questions relate entirely to legalities.Briefly these facts are that Notification No. 108/74 (as amended) exempted fertilizer specified therein from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon as these equivalent to the duty calculated on the value specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the table annexed to the notification. There is no dispute that the respondents man...
Collector of Central Excise. Vs. Modi Arc Electrodes Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC147
1. This is a case where respondents have availed production incentive under Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-6-1976. Their base clearances were fixed by the Department on 22-12-1976 and on this basis, the respondents availed of duty concession, in excess of base clearances during the financial year 1978-79 (i.e. upto 31-3-1979). On 26-9-1980, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents demanding duty of the order of Rs. 1.85,289.34 alleging that the base clearances had wrongly been worked out at a lower level and the respondents availed of higher concession. This demand of duty was confirmed by the Assistant Collector, but set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is against this order of the Collector (Appeals) that the department is now before us.2. In the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, authorising the filing of this appeal, it is submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in allowing the appeal on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »