Delhi Court December 1990 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. B.N. Bhaskar and Sons
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD423(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the revenue is against the deletion of penalty by CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi. Penalty under Section 273(1a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been imposed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 2,420 as according to him, assessee had furnished statement of advance-tax payable by him, which he knew or had reason to believe to be untrue.The CIT(A) considering the explanation furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before him to be bona fide, cancelled the penalty.2. Assessee is a registered firm and for the year ending 31st March, 1981 filed an estimate of income on 13th March, 1981 estimating the income at Rs. 3 lakhs. Assessee filed a return of income on 14th May, 1982 declaring an income of Rs. 5,59,010. Assessment was, however, made at an income of Rs. 5,56,015. Since there was disparity between the assessed/returned income and the income estimated by the assessee, later was required to explain as to why penalty under Section 273 may not be levied for h...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Golcha theatres and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT314; 1991(20)DRJ128; 1991RLR13
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) M/S. Golcha Theatres and its three partners are the owners of the property bearing no. 1232/1148, and 1253/1148, situated at Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. They purchased this built-up property sometime in the year 1962 for the purpose of constructing a cinema after demolishing the existing structure. They moved an Application seeking, permission thereforee but it was declined by .the Delhi Development Authority. thereforee, the petitioner wrote to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for allowing them to put the property to commercial use. This permission was also refused on the short ground that the draft Zonal Development Plan of this area has not yet been published. (2) On 10.7.65, the Delhi Development Authority published the draft Zonal Plan for Karol Bagh Zone. In the said plan, the land use of the property in question was shown as commercial up to a depth of 30 ft. of the plot. At the petitioner had no grievance against the draft Zonal Plan, they did no...
Abnash Rani Suri and ors. Vs. Santosh Choudhry and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT496; 1991(20)DRJ124; 1991RLR159
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In this application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the plaintiff has prayed that defendants may be directed to pay arrears of rent/occupation charges in future.(2) The case set up by the plaintiff is that the defendants are the joint tenants of the plaintiffs of the property bearing No N-6, N.D.S.E. Part I, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000.00 . Defendant No. 1 used to pay rent to plaintiffs 1 and 2 his half share, i.e , Rs. 20,000.00 . Defendant No. 2 used to pay his second half share to Rs.20,000.00 to plaintiffs 3 and 4 per month. The defendants used to pay rent in advance by the 10th day of each calendar month as agreed upon. Defendant No.1had paid the rents to the plaintiffs No 1 and 2 for the period ending 5th May, 1990 and she is in arrears of Rs. 60,000.00 toward the rents for the period ending 5th August, 1990. Similarly, defendant No. 2 has pot paid the rents after 6th June, 1990 and he is in arrears of Rs. 40,000.00 by way of r...
Ras Extrusions Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT450TriDel
1. The appellants have imported an "Aseptic Packaging Machine" with complete set of standard accessories and have claimed assessment under Heading 8422.40, C.T.A. read with Notification No. 125/86-Cus., dated 17-02-1986 and under OGL Appendix-1, Part-B, Sl. No.17, Part-I of AM 1988-91. The Principal Collector has held the machines to be falling under Heading 8479.89 and denied them the exemption under Notification No. 125/86-Cus. and also confiscated the machine for contravention of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, and permitted redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- and differential duty of Rs. 93,56,362.30.2. The appellants have putforth the following grounds of appeal. That they were not permitted the cross-examination of the experts, whose reports formed the basis for issue of the Show Cause Notice and, therefore, there was a denial of the principles of natural justice.The examination report of Shri P.V. Narayanan, Additional Director of Indian Institute of P...
Manohar Lal Atree Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT414
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Rule D.B. (2) The petitioner was owner of land being khasra Nos. 515 min, 515 min and 515 min totalling 8 bighas 8 bids was in village Sat Bari. Delhi. In respect of the said village notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued. The said notifications were challenged in a writ petition being Civil Writ No. 1639 of 1985 Balak 'Ram Gupta v. Union of India and others' : 37(1989)DLT150 . Vide judgment dated 18th November, 1988 the said notifications were quashed. (3) Thereafter another bunch of writ petitions was filed being Civil Writ No. 51 of 1989, Balbir Singh and am. v. Union of India : 39(1989)DLT233 . In this writ petition it was stated that where the possession has not been taken by the Delhi Admn. they should be restrained from doing so and where possession has been taken the same should be returned. This was with regard to land situate in those villages whose notifications had been quashed by the judgment of this Court in Balak ...
Dilip Dey Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT82
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the detention order dated 6th of March, 1990 and the ensuing detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be quashed and the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. (2) The petitioner was detained by the impugned order made by the empowered Joint Secretary to the Government of India, with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. The detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 17th of March, 1990. It is unnecessary for the present purpose to set out all the grounds in detail. (3) It is alleged that on 11th of December, 1989, a special petrol party of the Border Security Force, in the course of their petrol near Bay of Bengal intercepted a trawler with seven Bangladesh nationals on board. O...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC630Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have, in this case, sought for setting aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 16/87 (M) A. No. 212/86 (M), dated 30-1-1987 confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector, Madras. The Assistant Collector in the Order-in-Original has approved classification of item as 'Spindle HVI Oil' from 1982 cleared to L. 6 holder, under Chapter X procedure for use in the manufacturing of agricultural spray oil, under Item 11A(3)(b) at the rate of Rs. 1149.50 per M.T. with appropriate special excise duty as per the Notification No. 44/78, dated 1-3-1978 as amended and from 1-3-1986, the Assistant Collector has also approved the classification of the item at the rate of Rs. 1207/-per M.T. as per the Notification No. 75/84, dated 1-3-1984 as amended by Notification No. 120/86, dated 1-3-1986. Thereby, he has also demanded the differential duty due from the appellants for clearance of spindle HVI oil used in the manufacture of agri...
Assi Bai and anr. Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT157
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) ADMITTED. With the consent of the parties, I proceed to dispose of the revision petition. (2) By the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge has dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code .for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner wanted to amend the written statement by adding the following plea : 'THATthe suit of the Plaintiff as framed is not maintainable and is barred by the provision of Section 281-A of the Income-tax Act as is stood at the time of filing of the suit by the plaintiff. Under the provision of Section 281-A of the Income-tax Act no suit to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person, in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the claimant) claiming to be the real owner of such property unless- (a) the income, if any, from such pr...
Tej Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT318
Malik, J.(1) Even though this case is on my board for a long time, the counsel for the parties have not put in any appearance. I, thereforee, proceed to decide this revision petition on merits. (2) The petitioner was convicted by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate under section 417, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count and also a fine of Rs. 500.00 , in default of payment of fine one month's rigorous imprisonment. The Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 6th of June 1983 set aside the conviction under section 468 Indian Penal Code . (Sic) and maintained the conviction under sections 468 and 471' of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The petitioner was charged with the aforesaid offences on the ground that on his appointment as a Peon in the Badarpur Thermal Power Project he submitted a forged middle pass certificate from the A.H. Janta Inter College, Dadri, Bulandshahr, and on verification from the Principa...
M/S. Modi Threads Limited Vs. M/S. Som Soot Gola Factory and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi4; 1992(22)DRJ24
ORDER1. M/s. Modi Threads Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, has brought the suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants restraining them from infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff, namely, 'COCK BRAND' comprising of the device of the cock pertaining to threads and the yarn of the textile material and also restraining the defendants etc. from selling, advertising in any manner their threads and yarn of textile material in the impugned cartons or in similar or colourable cartons producing stylish imitation and substantial reproduction of the cartons of the plaintiff and also restraining them from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in threads and yarns of textile material under the impugned cock device and the: impugned cartons or any other mark, device or carton, as may be identical to and/or deceptively similar with the trade mark and carton of the plaintiff. Relief of rendition of accoun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »