Delhi Court February 1991 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.
inspecting Assistant Vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD335(Delhi)
1. It is convenient to dispose of the three appeals by a common order.The main appeal is against the order of the CIT (Appeals) giving certain reliefs in the assessment for the year 1984-85. The CIT (Appeals) had later passed on order under Section 154 and this has given rise to one more appeal. The assessee has also filed a cross objection in respect of some of the points, decided by the CIT (Appeals).2 to 31. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 32. This question is not really new, because the point had arisen for the assessment year 1982-83. The assessing authority had held that the assessee is not entitled to this deduction, whereas the CIT (Appeals) held otherwise. For this year also, he followed his own decision for the prior year. The decision of the CIT(Appeals) for the earlier year has been considered by the Tribunal by an order dated 24-9-1990. The Tribunal has upheld the CIT's finding. However, it would appear that, for a subsequent year, the ...
Bank of India Vs. M/S Mehta Brothers and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi374
1. These are two applications filed by defendant No.6. These were filed on 4-4-1988. First application is under O. 9, R. 13 and S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the second u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The ex parte judgment and decree which are sought to be set aside are dated 10-3-1987. The circumstances that led to the filing of these two applications may be stated in brief in so far as these are relevant.2. The plaintiff is constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. On 30-8-1982 it filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 91,58,480.08 against defendants numbering six. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm, of which defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the partners. 6th defendant, who is now the applicant, is the body incorporates under the laws of West Germany and is said to be a foreign company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. On the request of defendants No. 1 to 5, the plaintiff on 26-6-1979 established an irrevocabl...
Amar Singh and anr. Vs. Jai Parkash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi267; 44(1991)DLT198
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This revision is directed against an order dated 11.5.87 of the learned Sub Judge, Delhi by which he decided a preliminary issue in favor of the plaintiff-respondents and against the defendant- petitioners. (2) The Respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit against petitioner-defendants for a declaration that the order of the Consolidation Officer, New Courts, This Hazari, Delhi in case No. 2763/CO dated 14.10.83 between Afool Chand etc. v. Charon Singh and that of the Director of Consolidation/Financial Commissioner Delhi in case No. 380/83-CA decided on 3.7.86 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) is null and void, illegal and in-operative qua the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of ownership and possession of Sqare No. 30 Kila No. 10 (3-0), I/I (8-7), Sqare No. 31 Kila No. 5/2 (1-10), in all measuring standard 6 bighas and 17 bids was situated in the revenue Estate of Burari, D...
Hansraj Prushottam Dass and ors. Vs. Suman Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT424
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25th May, 1989 passed by Shri Ghansham Dass Gupta, Sub Judge 1st Class. Delhi whereby the applications of the defendants-petitioners under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and also under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been dismissed. (2) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against petitioner No. I through its sole proprietor, late Shri Hans RaJ. At this stage it may be noted that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Shri Hans .Raj, deceased. An application for leave to defend filed by Shri Hans Raj before the trial Court was dismissed in default on 6.1.1988 and consequently a decree was passed against Shri Hans Raj, the defendant. The defendant, Hans Raj, during his life time filed an application under Order...
Mahabir Parsad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT717
S.C. Jain, J. (1) Shri Mahabir Prasad, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month for violation of Rule 44(j) of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 read with Section 7(v) read with S. 16(l)(a)(ii) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by order dated 20.12.1979 by the Addl Sessions Judge Delhi. ' (2) The short question which requires determination in this case is the interpretation of Rule 44(j) of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as it existed in 1976, which reads as under : 'NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of rule 43 no person shall either by himself or by any servant or agent sell dahi or curd prepared from raw and untreated milk/skimmed milk.'(3) As per the arguments of Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner Rule 44(j) is one consolidated piece and it cannot be dissected into various parts. According to him...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Madan Lal and Chuni Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT164
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that firm M/s. Madan Lal Chuni Lal, of which Chuni Lal and Madan Lal were partners was carrying on kiryana business at shop No. H-14/10, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. On 25/10/75, a sample of Imli was purchased by the Food inspector from the said firm and on analysis it was found to be adulterated. The firm as well as two partners Chuni Lal and Madan Lal were prosecuted and tried under Section 7/16/17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. (2) During trial one of the accused Madan Lal died and the case proceeded against the firm and Chuni Lal and the trial Court convicted Chuni Lal under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and released him on probation on executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace and being of good behavior for one year and also on giving an undertaking that he would not commit any offence under Prevention of Food ...
Raghubir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC135; 1992(59)ELT380(Del)
M.C. Jain, C.J.(1) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Rule D B. (2) On account of mis-description of the goods, the Addl. Collector of Customs confiscated the goods by his order dated 22.6.89 although an option was given to the petitioner to re-export the same on redemption fine of Rs. 10.000.00 . He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 upon the Thai Airways under Section 112 of the Customs Act. (3) Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal against the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs and without exhausion of such remedy, the petitioner should not have approach- fed this Court. The petitioner's contention is that the order of confiscation itself js bad as the goods were bound for Kabul. For the purposes of trans-shipment, if the goods are imported, then there is no liability of payment of any duty, and without payment of duty, the goods should be allowed to be trans-shipped to Kabul. The respondents' case is that in the...
B.N. Khanna Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT727
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) By the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Col. B.N. Khanna, petitioner herein,besides other reliefs, seeks to challenge the orders dated 16/04/1985, passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, respondent no. 4, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, (hereinafter called the Act) and another order dated 15/07/1982, passed by him, and prays for quashing of the same. For better appreciation, of the various contentions,raised by the parties, and the issues, involved in this case, it will be useful, to refer to in brief, the facts and circumstances of the case, which are as under :-(2) Diplomatic Enclave Extension Cooperative House Building Society,respondent no. 2 herein, hereinafter referred to as 'the society', was formed with the objects to develop lands and allot the same to its members, so as to provide them the house building sites. Petitioner is a Founder Member of t...
Indian Potash Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC74Tri(Delhi)
1. These six appeals involve a common basic issue. They were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The miscellaneous applications filed by the appellants for permission for introduction of additional/supplementary grounds were taken up first. The Departmental Representative did not have any objection. After hearing both sides, we allowed the applications.3. The arguments, in the main, were with reference to Appeal No. 647/87 which was stated to be a typical case. Only in Appeal No. 646/87-C certain additional submissions were made. Those will be dealt with at the appropriate stage.4. We shall, therefore, consider Appeal No. 647/87-C to understand the issues involved and the submissions made.5. M/s. Indian Potash Ltd. (the appellants), the agents appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture for handling and distribution of Muriate of Potash (M.O.P. for short) were importing (as recorded in the impugned order) the said item and clearing the same regularly th...
Hitkraft India Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC411Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal arises out of an order of the Addl. Collector confiscating the goods of the value of Rs. 2,34,680/- under Section 113 of the Customs Act subject to payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants presented on 23-11-1987, 35 bails containing 1800 pieces of woollen garments (1600 gents shawls and 200 ladies shawls) valued at Rs. 1,20,400/- for inspection by the Customs' Staff before they are exported to Dubai. The Customs, on examination, found 2623 pieces of woollen garments (1622 pieces of gents shawls and 531 pieces of ladies shawls and 472 pieces of rumals) as against 1800 pieces mentioned in the Shipping Bill. The Customs Authorities also did not agree with the declaration of price made by the appellants and therefore, sought opinion of the two expert firms. The appellants declared the price at Rs. 66 per piece of gents' shawls whereas experts' firms gave the opinion t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »