Delhi Court November 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 5 of about 110 results (0.022 seconds)Dena Bank Vs. Blndal Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi171; [1992]75CompCas271(Delhi)
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In this application under Order 12 . Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. the plaintiff has prayed for passing a decree on the basis of admission of the suit amount. (2) The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 21,76,110.39 with pendente lite and future interest. According to the plaintiff, the defendants in the written statement in reply to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint, while admitting that loans and advances were availed of by them. stated that there was no mala fide intention on. behalf of the defendants in being irregular in the matter of payment of advances made. It was also stated in these paras that it is only due to financial constraints that the defendants were compelled to be irregular in the matter of accounts. It has been admitted by the defendants that they have every desire to return the correct amount to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has stated that admission/denial of documents carried out by the defendants in January, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. Vs. Jai Industrial Services and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(1)ARBLR33(Delhi); 45(1991)DLT405
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Have heard the arguments for deciding this application seeking temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. Ad interim injunction order already stands granted In favor of the plaintiff vide order dated December 16,1987. (2) The plaintiff is a proprietor of trade mark 'CEAT' registered under No. 204251 since August, 1961, in respect of pneumatic and solid tyres for vehicles. This trade mark 'CEAT' has been in use in India since 1951 earlier by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and the registration of the said trade mark still subsists in favor of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the trade mark/word 'CEAT' is a part of the plaintiff's company trading style and is also an invented word and the plaintiff has been selling huge quantities of tyres, tubes and other material under the trade mark 'CEAT' and the plaintiff commands good reputation and goodwill in the said name and the sale of such goods runs into crores of rupees in a /year a...
Tag this Judgment!Doon Chips Manufacturers Society Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(36)LC600Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.7.1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi by which he had held that the goods in question in the present appeal, namely, limestone powder and chips, will be eligible for exemption under Notification 23/55 subject to the appellants' establishing that the goods are as per IS I specification for fillers/extenders/diluents and are marketed as such. The relevant portion of the Notification is extracted below: The following items are exempt from the payment of whole of the Excise duty leviable thereon: (i) Minerals, employed either as extenders, suspending agents or fillers or as diluents, namely: Barytes, Bauxite, Bentonite, China clay, Celestite, Limestone and chalk (including precipitated chalk), Fuller's earth, gypsum, mica, silica, Asbestos, Talc and slate....2. Sh. J.S. Agarwal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the Collector (Appeals)'s order has gone beyond the terms of the Notif...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Cement Distributors Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)36ITD363(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals by the Revenue and raise identical issues.They were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee and have perused the material placed before us.2. In ITA No. 4766/87 which arises out of the assessment for assessment year 1979-80 the facts are : The assessee filed a return of income on 29-6-1979 showing nil income after adjustment of unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed investment allowance. There was tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 31,123. A provisional assessment under Section 141A was made on nil income and on 31-12-1979 the aforesaid amount of Rs. 32,123, which had been deducted from the assessee's income at source was refunded to the assessee. Thereafter a regular assessment was completed on 14-7-1982 on an income of Rs. 3,14,170. A demand of Rs. 2,52,178 resulted from the said assessment. This demand included a sum of Rs. 70,759 on ac...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Hydraulics Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)36ITD165(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1977-78 is directed against the order dated 13-8-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jalandhar.2. Though as many as six grounds have been taken in this appeal the effective issues are two. One issue challenges the re-opening of proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the other issue challenges the withdrawal of depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,34,729 and of investment allowance amounting to Rs. 3,91,216.3. We shall first deal with the issue with regard to the reopening of the proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that the original assessment for assessment year 1977-78 was made by the Income-tax Officer, Distt. 11(1), Jalandhar, vide order dated 27-9-1980 on total income of Rs. 2,73,328. At the time of original assessment the assessee was allowed depreciation of Rs. 5,36,468 and investment allowance of Rs. 5,83,202 as claimed by the assessee in the return....
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Jajodia and ors. Vs. State (Central Bureau of Investigation)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT61
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Brigadier (Retired) R.S. Diol has moved this application under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being released on bail for the offences under S. 120-B Indian Penal Code . read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and substantive offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). (2) R. S. Dwivedi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, filed a complaint against five persons including the petitioner in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial for the offences mentioned in paragraph No. 1. After committal proceedings the case has since been committed to the sessions court for trial and is pending. (3) Case R.C. 4/1987-SIU. I was registered on 17th April, 1987 in Special Investigation Cell-I, Spe / C.B.I., New Delhi and during the investigation of this case residence of the petitioner was searched on 10th November, 1988. He was arrested on 11th November, 1988 and he c...
Tag this Judgment!HussaIn Bano Vs. Nazir Jan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT173
C.L. Chaudhary, J. (1) Shri Nazir Jan filed a suit against his brother and sister seeking partition of house No. 1509, Ward No. X, Suiwalan Delhi. Defendant No. 2 in the Suit was Mst. Hussain Bano. The suit was decreed on 17.8.1981 by which the share of the plaintiff was declared to be 135/288th while the share of defendant No. 2 was declared to bel3/288th. The decree against defendant No. 2 was ex-parte as she did not appear despite service. Defendant No. 2 thereafter filed an application under Order 9. Rule 13 Cpc for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed on 17.8.1981. The application of defendant No. 2 was dismissed by order dated 27.4.1983. Defendant No. 2 has filed the present appeal against the order dated 27.4.1983 which is under disposal. Defendant No. 2, appellant herein, stated in the application under Order 9, Rule 13 Cpc, that the appellant was a pardanashin lady and no summons was ever served on the appellant from the court by any mode or process. The appellant never re...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. and ors. Vs. Shell Paper Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(34)LC337Tri(Delhi)
1. In all these appeals, though facts may be slightly different, the issues to be decided are same. So, we have heard them together and dispose them of by this common order.2. Appellants are paper mills manufacturing different types of papers wherein they have to prepare some types of aqueous solution for the purpose of sizing the paper. Sizing is for the purpose of making the paper water repellant and rosin is a material which is used for giving this effect. But, as stated by the appellants and not disputed by the Department, rosin comes in the form of lump and cannot be used as such, so emulsion has to be prepared by adding some other material and dissolving them in the water. Process, adopted for this purpose by all the appellants, is more or less the same. The process, as stated in the impugned order in para 8 in Appeal No. E/4015/89-C (M/s. Steadfast Paper Mills, Appellant), is that the product, in question is manufactured reacting caustic soda lye in water and then heating the s...
Tag this Judgment!J.C. Budhraja Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi520
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for a short 'the Act') for making the award dated 11th July 1986 made by Mr. S. N. Sinha and Mr. G. Varma, two Arbitrators, as Rule of the Court. The suit was registered on the Arbitrators filing the award in the Court. Then, the claimant, J. C. Budhraja, filed application (LA. 5116 of 1986) under Section 17 of the Act. On notice of filing of the award having been issued to the parties, the respondent Steel Authority of India Limited ('SAIL' for short) filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act and these were registered as I.A. 5843 of 198.6. After the pleadings were conmplete, the following issues were framed:1. Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? 2. Whether any part of subject-matter of the reference was beyond the scope of arbitration? If so, to what effect? 3.Whether the award is liable to be set aside on any of grounds urged in I-A...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Shivalik Cellulose (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1991)BC342; [1991]72CompCas545(Delhi); 43(1991)DLT303
N.N. Goswami, J. (1) This appeal by the Union of India is directed against the order dated February 15, 1990 passed by the learned Company Judge, whereby the winding up order dated December 9, 1989 passed against respondent No. I. company was rescinded and the application filed by Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 1DBI') under section 50 of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was allowed and the scheme was drawn. (2) Admittedly around Rs. 700.00 lakhs are due to the Financial Institutions from the Company in question. The winding up of the Company was not likely to result in recovery of the said dues. In order to revive and rehabilitate the Company the scheme was propounded and an application under section 50 of the Act was filed. All the Financial Institutions were represented before the learned Company Judge and their case was that the scheme will be the only way to rehabilitate the industrial con...
Tag this Judgment!