Delhi Court January 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 4 of about 118 results (0.020 seconds)Choice Laboratories State Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC499Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned orders, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, upheld the two orders dated 14-4-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (1) denying the benefit of excise duty exemption to the appellants in terms of Central Excise Notification No.140/83 dated 5-6-1983 during the financial year 1985-86 on the ground that the value of clearance of all excisable goods by them during the preceding year had exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs, the cut-off point laid down in the eligibility criterion and (2) demanding duty on the above ground on the clearances effected during the period from 1-8-1985 to 31-8-1985.2. By Notification No. 46/81-C.E., dated 1-3-1981 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted from excise duty all goods except sandal oil falling under Item No. 68 of the CET (the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944), other than goods manufactured in a factory (as defined in the Factories Act, 1948...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arvind Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Del)211; [1992]193ITR330(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following questions to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that expenditure of Rs. 3,64,13,337 on which weighted deduction under section 35B was allowed by the Income-tax Officer amounting to Rs. 1,21,37,945 was covered by the assessed's appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby cancelling the order under section 263 of Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred in actual performance of contract, and not for promotion of sales outside India of goods and services is entitled to deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that the application under section 256(2) is barred by time. The order under section 256(1) was sent to the Chief Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Amarnath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1990)DLT695; 1991(20)DRJ359
P.N. Nag. J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th August. 1972 passed by Shri B.B Gupta, D.J.S.Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Delhi setting aside and reversing the judgment of the trial court dated 21st January, 1969 and thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff otherwise than in due course of law. Being aggrieved by this order dated 14th August, 1972 the Delhi Development Authority has filed this regular second appeal against the plaintiff-respondent. The respondent plaintiffs had filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them in any manner whatsoever from plot No. 2, situated behind G.P.O. Delhi or from the building standing thereon.(2) As is apparent from the order dated 19-11-1986 of this court, during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No 2, Shri Bishan Nath, died in the year 1986 Admittedly, no application for bringing on the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Kaur Vs. S. Mohan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1991)BC370; 43(1991)DLT621
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7th December, 1989 passed by Shri P.D. Jarwal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi dismissing an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil-Procedure Code, 1908 praying for transposition of plaintiff No. 2 as defendant No. 5. (2) The petitioner-plaintiff along with Ajit Singh had filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts between the partners. According to the petitioner, Shri Ajit Singh was a partner in the partnership although this fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned Sub Judge has disallowed this application mainly on the ground' that Shri Ajit Singh, plaintiff No. 2, has compromised with the defendants-respondants and on 18.11.1988 the order was passed and it was held that it was not necessary to give notice to the other plaintiff because it was a request for the compromise and in the opinion of the court if the p...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Lal Aich and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT227
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In this application under Order I Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the petitioners seek an amendment of the writ petition, which has been vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. (2) The short relevant facts which have necessitated this application for amendment are that one of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in this writ petition was that they were appointed as General Duty Officers Grade-11 somewhere in 1978 and since they worked continuously in that job, they should have been regularised w.e.f. the dates they were appointed as General Duty Officers Grade-11. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, partial relief has been allowed by the department and the petitioners have been regularised by the respondent-Corporation on the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission with effect from 27.12.1980. The petitioners now claim that consequent on the regularisation w.e.f. 27.12.1980 their...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Road Carriers Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1991(2)ARBLR160(Delhi); 1991(21)DRJ28
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) By this judgment, I propose to decide the objections filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., respondent no.1 herein, under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the award dated November 15, 1986, made and published by Shri P.D. Chawla, respondent no. 2.(2) In brief, the facts and circumstances, giving rise to the present case, are as under.(3) Respondent no. 1, a Government Company, vide its communication dated July 4, 1980, made an enquiry from petitioner, regarding transportation of certain dectro-mechanical equipments, from its Bhopal works to Bhemphedi in Nepal, through Raxaul Border. Petitioner, vide letter dated 7th August, 1980, submitted its qnoiations, to respondent no. and the details of the rates per unit, chargeable by petitioner. Thereafter, negotiations followed between the parties, by means of correspondence. It appears that in course of such negotiations, petitioner submitted to respondent no. 1, a revised quotation, by its letter d...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Parshad and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT311
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Appellants land measuring 3 bighas & 18 his was bearing Khasra Nos. 273/1 (1-18), 274 (1-7) & 279/2 (0-13), situated in the revenue estate of village Madipur was acquired vide notification dated 12th November, 1963 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Land Acquisition Collector made his Award No. 1913 dt. 26th October, 1964 whereby he awarded compensation @ Rs. 4,500.00 per bigha. Reference was made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned Addl. District Judge vide his judgment dt. 24th October, 1968 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6.000.00 per bigha. ' We have been informed that this Court in R.F.A. No. 490/68 decided on 18th December, 1987 had awarded compensation @ Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha for the land situated in revenue Estate of Village Madipur. The Division Bench in R.F.A No. 490/68 was concerned with a notification dated 13th November, 1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (2...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Wanti Dasuja Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT223
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Rule D.B.(2) In this petition the prayer is that the letter terminating the membership of the membership of the petitioner by respondent No. 2 and the rejection of the representation by respondent No. 2 should be quashed.(3) The husband of the petitioner, namely, Shri Shiv Dayal Dasuja, is stated to have been a member of respdt. No. 2 which is a house building society.The husband of the petitioner died in 1965. The petitioner was the nominee with the respondent Society and after her husband's death, had been paying to respondent No. 2 various sums of money, totalling Rs. 7.283.00. In proof thereof, the petitioner has annexed with the petition a receipt of July 1977 for an amount of Rs. 3.700.00 and thereafter a demand was received vide notice dated 4/08/1985 and a sum of Rs. 3,500.00 was paid by the petitioner in that month itself, (4) Suddenly, according to the petitioner, a cheque of Rs. 7.283.00 was received by her in August, 1985. The petitioner thereafter went ...
Tag this Judgment!Uptron Powertronics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC3Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. The learned counsel stated that the Appellant M/s. Uptron Powertronics Limited are a Government of U. P. Undertaking, promoted by the UP Electronics Corporation Limited, Lucknow, a wholly owned corporation of Government of Uttar Pradesh. M/s. UP Electronics Corporation holds 75% equity share capital in the company. The company was incorporated in April 1977 and commenced manufacturing operations as a small scale unit in December 1979. Appellant company is engaged in the manufacture of high technology power electronics equipments like, power plants, Battery chargers, switching cubicles, UPS systems, Float Rectifiers, Servo Controlled Voltage Stabilizers, compressor Driers etc. - All these equipments are tailor-made/custom built for customers viz. P&T, Indian Telephone Industries, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Thermal Power Stations, Naval Projects etc.3. Appellant company manufactures power p...
Tag this Judgment!B.L. Salarpuria Vs. S. Choudhury
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT664
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In this revision petition filed under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the petitioner-tenant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 6th April, 1990 passed by Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi vide which leave to the petitioner-tenant to defend the suit has been refused and order of ejectment has been made against him .and in favor of the respondent-landlord. (2) The facts giving rise to this petition, in substance, are that the original respondent-landlord, namely, S. Choudhury (now deceased) filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the premises bearing No. B-2/96, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-16. The petitioner-tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit for ejectment on various grounds, inter ali, that earlier eviction petition on ground of personal requirement had been dismissed after contest by order dated 19.11.87 of Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Additional Rent Controller, Delh...
Tag this Judgment!