Delhi Court January 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 5 of about 118 results (0.019 seconds)Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shakti Sikand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR163(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the assessed's one-third share in the advance rent received from foreign embassy, for the property at No. 1, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi, is a debt within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, ignoring the fact that, in the order for the earlier year in the assessed's own case, the matter has been referred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for proper ascertainment of facts ?' 2. The assessed was one of the co-owners of a house having one-third share therein and had received advance rent to be adjusted every year. A question arose as to whether this advance rent could be regarded as a debt due to the tenant or not. 3. The Tribunal, in respect of the assessment year 1979-80, has found as a fact that 'nor was it in dispute before us, that the assessed was holding this amount on behalf of the tenants and that the am...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Builders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR250(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of additional receipt granted to the assessed-firm by the arbitrator, vide his award dated August 15, 1977, was taxable on due basis in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 to 1978-79 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of additional receipt granted to the assessed-firm by the arbitrator was not taxable in the assessment year during which the amount had been awarded and quantified by the arbitrator ?' 2. As is evident from the questions proposed, the assessed was a building contractor. A claim was raised before the arbitrator who awarded a certain sum of money in favor of the assessed, vide his award dated August 15, 1977. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that this am...
Tag this Judgment!Amrik Singh Lyallpuri Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT567; 1991(20)DRJ402; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)221
P.N. Nag, J.(1) The short question that requires consideration in this revision petition is whether a reference can be made by the subordinate court of Addl. Rent Controller to the High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.(2) The petitioner applicant moved a contempt petition before the subordinate court on ll-2-1988 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent for initiation of contempt proceedings on the ground that the respondents had willfully disobeyed the orders of this court and taken possession of the premises in dispute on 16th August, 1987 in execution proceedings in violation of the slay of the execution proceedings ordered by the then Rent Controller on 25th April, 1964 dand 1st June. 1964 It appears the Additional Rent Controller issued notice of this application to the alleged co...
Tag this Judgment!Durgo Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ730; 43(1991)DLT554; ILR1991Delhi144
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) In the year 1980 Smt. Durgo was married to Lila Dhar. However, soon. thereafter their matrimonial life started facing rough weather. The reason being, besides petty domestic differecces, his addition to smack. Both were living in a portion of the house belonging to Umrao Lal and Smt. Bhouri, parents in law of Smt. Durgo. On the fateful day of October 13, 1985 at about 3 p.m. Umrao Lal and Smt. Bhouri heard Lila Dhar shouting Bachao Bachao. They rushed to his room which was bolted from outside and on opening the same found their son in flames. He told them and Dal Chand (who too had arrived there) that it was his wife who had poured kerosene oil on him and had set him ablaze Soon thereafter he was rushed to the hospital. At the hospital, immediately on his admission he told the doctors attending upon him that he had been burnt by his wife. This was at about 3.55 P.M. The same day at about 4.20 p.m., on his having been declared fit to make statement, S.I. Dharam Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Singh Vs. V.S. Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT615
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order of Additional Rent Controller dated 15th November, 1972 whereby the eviction petition filed by the original respon- dents 2 to 6 was allowed. During the pendency of this petition, Shri Rajinder Kumar and Shri Jitender Kumar, respondents 4 and 5 died. Their legal representative have been brought on record. (2) The main contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the impugned order was passed ex-parte by the Addl. Rent Controller, though fresh notice was required to be given to the petitioner. It is submitted that notice was served on the petitioner for appearance on 6.11.72 which was declared a holiday. The case was however listed before the Court on the next working dav ie., on 7th November 1972 and on that day, the Additional Rent Controller passed an order proceeding ex-parte against fhe petitioner and listed the case for further proceedings on 15th November, 1972 ...
Tag this Judgment!Purvanchal Poly-pack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT376TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 9-2-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. Along with the appeal the appellants have also filed their application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Detailed facts are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the present application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal except to state a few facts. By the present appeal the appellants have challenged the Adjudication Order-in-Original dated 9-2-1990 (issued on 21-2-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad). According to Sub-Section (3) of Section 35-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 such appeals are required to be filed within 3 months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the party preferring the appeal. In the instant case as per the statement made by the appellants in Column 3 of the Memorandum of Appeal (Form No. EA-3) the s...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Polyrotex Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC314Tri(Delhi)
1.1. The appellants are getting duty-paid raw materials covered under Chapter 39 for being used in the manufacture of their final product - polythelene film - falling under sub-heading No. 3920.32. During the manufacture, some scrap or waste arises. The appellants' plea is that this scrap/waste is exempted from payment of duty under notification No. 222/86 if such waste, parings and scrap, of plastics, arise from goods, falling under Chapter 39 or any other Chapter of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) on which the duty of excise leviable thereon under the Central Excises and Salt Act or the additional duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as the case may be, has been paid. The above condition is obviously fulfilled, according to the appellants, since the inputs are admittedly duty paid under Chapter 39.2. Department relies on the provision of Rule 57F (4)(a)which states that "(4) any waste, arising from the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Kupling (India) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC206Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. 5/89 passed under C.No. V(7305)15/95-CE/87/604 dated 20/21-2-1989, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The issue involved is the classification of the pipes and pipe fittings and the application of the exemption Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1-8-1983.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Iron and Steel Pipe fittings (Sockets)'. The department has held that these are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 as it existed prior to 28-2-1986 and under sub-heading 7305.00, and Central Excise Tariff 1985 from 28-2-1986. It is the contention of the appellant that prior to 1-8-1983, the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 26AA(iv) as pipes and tubes (including blanks therefor) all sorts, whether rolled, forged; spun, cast, drawn, annealed, welded or extruded. After 1-8-1983, under Tariff Item 25(15) - Tubes and Pipes and Blanks therefor of iron or steel, rolled, forged, spun, cast, drawn, annealed, welded o...
Tag this Judgment!Continental Enterprires Vs. National Acmf
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: 1991RLR441
P.K. Bohri, J.(1) [ED. facts : 20 years back on 9.1.81, respondent agreed to sell to pff. 10,000 M.T. of rice It was to be supplied Fob stowed liner at Kandla port. Average rate of loading was 750 M.T. per day during Jan. & Feb. Petitioner could not bring the ship in time though Deft had stacked rice in Jute bags. Petitioner could bring the ship only on 18.4.91 and was given berth on 26.4.81. Agreement was accordingly modified. Rice was to be loaded on bag selection method which meant Checking 10%. The checking was done by independent surveyors who insisted on 100% checking and due to this and non working for 24 hours about half of the agreed weight of 760 M.T. could be loaded in a day. For this pff. was asked to pay demurrage who claimed that Deft. was liable for this. The dispute was referred to arbitration who gave award in favor of Deft. Pff. filed objections for setting aside of the award.](2) The short question which arises for decision is whether arbitrator ignored any material ...
Tag this Judgment!Mambram Valiyattu Kammu, Kammu Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT75
S.B. Wad, J.(1) In this bunch of habeas corpus petitions, the detention orders are passed by the Kerala Government and the petitioners are in Kerala jails. We are of the considered opinion that these petitions ought to have been filed on the Kerala High Court. (2) It is noted for a long time in this Court that writ petitions involving detention orders passed by various State Governments are filed in this Court, adding to the already heavy burden of cases in this Court. From time to time other varieties of writ petitions are filed in bunch in this Court although the petitioners could have got the same relief in different High Courts in India. A few years back large number of writ petitions involving excise duty were filed in this Court, which could have been filed in different High Courts in India. In those cases interim reliefs were granted by this Court on furnishing bank guarantee. We do not want to create an impression on the litigant public that they can easily get a relief in this...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »