Delhi Court February 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.
Chintamani and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR574(Delhi)
1. The point involved in this case is with regard to the valuation of a property owned by the assessed. Following the decision of this court in Rajshuri v. CWT : [1987]163ITR473(Delhi) , we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the proper method of valuation was the land and building and not the rent capitalisation method ?' 2. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Motor Industries Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1990
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT410TriDel
1. The learned counsel has stated that this is a case in which the appellants had imported calcined alumina and claimed benefit of Customs Notification No. 49/87 dated 1-3-1987. But the benefit was not allowed and the duty was paid in protest.2. The above notification exempts calcined alumina of purely 99% when imported for manufacture of refractory products.In the instant case, the item was imported for the manufacture of insulators which is a refractory product and it is one of the components required for manufacture of spark plugs by them.They had submitted a write-up and a printed pamphlet in support of their contention.3. They would like to draw the attention to sub-chapter I of page 69 of the BTN in which it is mentioned in the General Heading B in respect of refractory goods that they are "fired articles having the special property of resisting high temperatures as made in Metallurgy, the Glass Industry, etc. (e.g. of the order of 1500 C and higher).According to the particular ...
Vishnu Processors Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC184Tri(Delhi)
1. By the aforesaid stay order dated 29.11.89, the West Regional Bench of this Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs in cash within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order. The total amount of duty demanded from the applicants was Rs. 11,75,491.00 in addition to penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. Before passing the stay order, the Tribunal had considered the financial hardship of the applicants. In this Misc.Application, the applicants have come up with a request for modification of the earlier stay order and dispensing with the deposit of duty and penalty.2. We have heard Shri Willingdon, learned advocate for the applicants and Smt. Zutshi, learned SDR for the respondent. Shri Willingdon has stated that when this stay application came for hearing he could not appear before the Tribunal as his wife was hospitalised. The representative, who appeared before the Tribunal on the date of disposal of the stay application could not properly explain the financial hardship with ...
Rajinder Kumar Khanna Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi278; [1990]68CompCas680(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT176
ORDER1. A suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure has been brought by the petitioner, basing itself upon a report' of an assessor regarding damages suffered to cargo of dry dates, which had been insured by the petitioner. Marine insurance claim having been lodged by the petitioner against the respondent company.2. It was asserted by the plaintiff in the suit and the Petitioner before me, that the claim in the suit was a 'liquidated demand'. The petitioner seeks to take advantage of the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, by which liquidated demand' became subject-matter of summary suits for the first time.3. The industry of counsel had not been able to produce a single precedent of courts in India, which explained what is 'liquidated demand'. However, reference has been made to Words & Phrases Permanent Edition, n which reference is made to Rifkin v. Safenovitz, 40 A 2d 188. It is stated that 'amount claimed to be due is a 'liquidated demand' within statute a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central-2) Vs. Mrs. Sunita Vachani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)84CTR(Del)18; [1990]184ITR121(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question of law to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in canceling the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed by the commissioner of Income-tax as a result of failure on the part of the Income-tax Officer to make any inquiries regarding genuineness of the alleged gifts ?' 2. There were some gifts from abroad which not taxed by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued notice under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and passed an order setting aside the order or Income-tax Officer and directing the Income-tax Officer pass a fresh assessment. The view of the commissioner of Income-tax Officer to that the order of the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the Income-tax Officer had gone into the sources of the gifts and had not satisfied himself about the genui...
New Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Pramod Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT450; 1990(19)DRJ1; 1990RLR160
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) This acquittal appeal is directed against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, dated 30th November 1979 by which order a complaint lodged by the New Delhi Municipal Committee against the respondents under Sections 7, 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was dismissed and the accused/ respondents were acquitted. In effect, the court below held that the sample of Dal Chini was adulterated. We may notice that during the trial one of the respondents, namely. Ram Karan, the vendor had died. (2) The facts are that on 8th of January 1976, a sample of Dal Chini was lifted from the deceased Ram Karan which he had been displaying for sale and human consumption and after usual sampling it was sent to the public analyst for examination. The shop from which the sample was lifted was then situated in Bengali Market, New Delhi, with the name and style of M/s. Laxmi Store of which Ram Karan deceased and Framed Kumar were partners and...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Ramesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1990
Reported in: 1990RLR177
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Only a short point is involved in this criminal revision. So, I proceed to dispose of this finally. (2) The respondent is facing trial for offences punishable u/Ss. 323 and 302 of the IPC. There is only one eye witness of the occurrence and she was examined as PW1. Her exam-in-chief was recorded on 13.4.1987 and her cross-exam, was completed on 4.7.1987. Pw 1 Pushpa herself had made an application on 12.12.1988, in which she had prayed for being given permission to narrate the true facts of the case and she filed two affidavits giving out her version of the occurrence which was at variance to what she had deposed in court as Public Witness 1 or had told the police in the F.I.R. The Additional Sessions Judge had not allowed that application and had observed that the question whether Public Witness 1 should be allowed to give any other statement would be decided after prosecution evidence has been completed. (3) The respondent had filed an application praying that Publ...
Ramavtar Motilal Jangid Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT558
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quotient of the detention order dated April 13, 1989 passed under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods, engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods and the declaration dated June I, 1989 issued under Section 9(1) of the Act.(2) The facts in brief are that on August 11, 1988, the petitioner bad arrived at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi from Dubai and had' declared certain goods including one TV-cum-VCP set and had stated that he was not carrying any contraband goods like gold. On suspicion the said TV-cum-VCP Set was opened and from one of its transformers 20 gold biscuits of 10 Gms. each were recovered and were seized. The petitioner was arrested under the Customs Act and he made the statement before the authorities that he had visited Dubai four times from May 1...
Collector of Customs Vs. Modi Xerox Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC226Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order-in-appeal No. 3119/88 BCH, dated 23-8-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., the respondents, are manufacturers of xerox machines and the company was promoted as a result of joint venture agreement entered between M/s.Indian Reprographics Systems and M/s. Rank Xerox U.K. for the manufacture of xerox machines. M/s. Rank Xerox hold 40% of the paid up capital of the company. There is also technical agreement between M/s.Rank Xerox and M/s. Modi Xerox and in terms of the agreement, M/s. Modi Xerox have to pay a lump sum fee of Rs. 87.87 lacs towards supply of knowhow and fee of Rs. 43.63 lacs as engineering fees for ancillary development. Modi Xerox had further agreed to pay royalty at the rate of 5% to M/s. Rank Xerox towards technical assistance, grant of licence and to furnish improvements during the tenure of the ag...
Surrrindra SteIn Malt Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1990
Reported in: I(1990)BC406; 41(1990)DLT586
Leila Seth, J.(1) By this appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated 4th April, 1986 passed by Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal. (2) We set out the relevant facts. The company was ordered to be wound up by an order of the Company Judge dated 13th December, 1977 in Company Petition No. 95 of 1976. The Official Liquidator, attached to the High Court of Delhi, Mr. S.C. Mittal was appointed as liquidator of the company and directed forthwith to take charge of all the property and effects of the company. From the date of the order of winding up the assets of the company came to be in the custody of the Court and under its supervision and control in view of Sections 456 and 529(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (3) The U.P. Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) was a secured creditor of the Company. It is a statutory Corporation incorporated under the State Financial Corporation Act 43 of 1951. It applied for permission/leave un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »