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.
Berger Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC72Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of, the lower authorities ordering loading of their values for imports from M/s. Berger, Jenson & Nicholson Group Supplies Ltd., U.K. by 2-1/2% on account of buying commission for the materials supplied by them to the appellants. This decision was communicated in a letter dated 16th January, 1982 after re-examination of their books of accounts by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Valuation Section, Customs House, Calcutta. It was found that M/s. Berger Group Supplies Limited held 39.54% of the equity share capital of the appellants and render service like procuring materials for the appellants as and when desired. When the books of accounts were examined on the previous occasion covering the period 1976-1979, it was found that the suppliers were acting as buying house and were charging a buying commission of 2-1/2% and, it was accordingly decided to load 2-1/2% buying commission to the invoice value for assessment of duty and debit to the i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.P.E. India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD351(Delhi)
1. This is-a Reference Application by the CIT requiring the Tribunal to refer one question of law, which is said to arise from the order of the Tribunal disposing of the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1985-86. The question suggested is given below:- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the IT AT was right in law in holding that the expenditure on commission was not in the nature of expenditure on sales promotion, as defined in Section 37(3B), for the purpose of making a disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the IT Act, 1961? In our opinion, the question does not require reference. We give our reasons below.2. The assessee is a Private Ltd. Company deriving income from the sale of electronic Models and Magnates. The assessee had paid Section 2,16,463 to their agents forgetting sales orders. The ITO treated this amount as Sales Promotion Expenditure and disallowed a percentage of it under Section 37(3A). The Tribunal held that the payment of commission i...
M/S. Fouress Engineering (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi447
M. C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated August 4, 1982, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M. No. 1225 of 1986 in W.P. No. 1697 of 1982. 2. It appears that the order was passed on the application of respondent No. 3 which was an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modifying the earlier order on the stay application passed on January 10, 1983. By that order the present appellant was directed to make payment of half of the back wages without security and there was a further direction to the appellant to continue to pay half of the salary and allowances to the workman till the disposal of the writ petition. In continuation of this order dated December 20, 1982, the learned Judge on January 10, 1983 ordered that payment should be made @ Rs. 400/- per month for the purpose of back wages and for future payments. 3. By the impugned order that learned Judge modified the earlier order and a direction was given that the payment should be...
VipIn Kumar and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT23; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)433
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 132 and 2535 of 1990. The petitioners were appointed as Beldars in the year 1980-81 at the time when the Delhi Development Authority was taking up the projects connected with Asian Games. Thereafter, it is not in dispute that the petitioners who were daily wagers were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs.), but again as daily wagers. It is also not in dispute that in the appointment letters it was indicated that the petitioners will have to pass written test and also typing test with a speed of 30 words per minute in order that they may be regularised.(2) The petitioners have not been able to qualify till 1987 in the written test and the typing test. It is, however, stated by Mr. Chakraborty that in the year 1988 two of the petitioners had qualified both in written test as also the typing test.(3) In the reply filed in Civil Writ No. 2535 of 1990, it has been stated by the respondent that in 1987 about 2200 candidates a...
Fouress Engineering (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT742; (1992)ILLJ710Del
M.C. Jain, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th August 1982, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M. No. 1225 of 1986 in C.W.P. No. 1697 of 1982. (2) It appears that the order was passed on the application of respondent No. 3 which was an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modifying the earlier order on the stay application passed on 10.1.1983. By that order the present appellant was directed to make payment of half of the back wages without security and there was a further direction to the appellant to continue to pay half of the salary allowances to the workman till the disposal of the writ petition. In continuation of this order dated 20th December, 1982, the learned Judge on 10th January, 1983 ordered that payment should be made @ Rs. 400.00 per month for the purpose of back wages and for future payments. (3) By the impugned order the learned Judge modified the earlier order and a direction was given that the payment should be ...
Management of M/S Daily Pratap Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT309; [1991(63)FLR344]; (1992)IILLJ470Del
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This writ petition was dismissed by me on merits on 11.1.1989 after hearing the counsel for the Management only as the counsel for the respondent/workman was not present. An application has been moved by the respondent/workman stating that his advocate had not been attending the case since 1987 and had returned the file to him. He did not, thereforee, know the date of hearing. I am satisfied with the Explanationn. The writ petition is restored to the file and is being disposed of with this order. (2) This writ petition is filed by the Management of M/s. Daily Pratap against the Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 10.12.1973, holding that the retrencbment of workman Balram on 9.9.1972 was illegal. The Tribunal further held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages. (3) Workman Balram was working as a Cartoonist with the petitioner since 1964 as a permanent hand on a salary of Rs. 562.00 per month. He was an active ...
Babu Lal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT570
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13th March, 1990 passed by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge Delhi wherein he has dismissed an application under order 39 Rules 1& 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff restraining the respondent-defendant from dispossessing the petitioner from the shop bearing No. 3/45, New Link Road, New Delhi on the ground that the appellant-petitioner is in possession of the shop as owner of the same. (2) Learned Additional District Judge, after having discussed the matter, has come to the prima facie finding that the petitioner is not the owner of the shop and be. has not come with clean hands and, thereforee not entitled to the relief asked for by him. (3) From the judgment, it appears that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant before the Additional District Judge was that even if it is assured that he is a trespasser, he ...
New India Assurance Co. Vs. Kamla Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT718
C.L. Chaudhry, J.1. Yad Ram was killed in an accident on 8.12.1971. His mother Kamla Devi, a widow, filed Compensation claim petition under Section 110(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50, 000/-. It was stated in the petition that on 8.12.1971 at about 12.30 P.M. Yad Ram was going on his motor cycle No. DLX-2920 on his right side at Mathura Road towards Faridabad. When the deceased had crossed the point at which another road leads to Jaitpur, the erring vehicle (Truck No. DLG-1283) came from the opposite direction on its wrong side and hit the motor cycle of the deceased. The truck instead of proceeding to the other side of the central patri came on the wrong side of the central patri and collided against the motor cycle of the deceased. The motor cycle of the deceased was badly damaged and the deceased received serious injuries on his person, due to which he died within a period of 3/4 hours. It was pleaded that the driver of the truck was driv...
Cbs Gramophone Records and Tapes Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC174
1. The appellants have challenged the validity of the Order-in-Appeal No. 4017/88-BCH, dated 31-10-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, who has confirmed the Order-in Original No. 125/87, dated 31-12-1987.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported 2,72,155 M.T. of PVC Compound falling under Heading 39.01 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tarff Act, 1975. The goods were warehoused under bond No. T-3333, dated 6-11-1984 in terms of Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for brevity's sake) and deposited on 15-11-1984 in a public bonded warehouse of the Central Warehousing Corporation at Chikalthana, New Aurangabad. The initial warehousing period was three months and the period was extended by the appropriate authority upto 31-12-1985. In the letter, dated 18-10-1985 extending the warehousing period upto 31-12-1985, the Central Board of Excise & Customs informed the appellants that no further...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Babul Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC73
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-10-1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals) upholding the order of the Assistant Collector, discharging the Show Cause Notice and granting refund of duty paid under protest by the respondents. M/s Babul Products, Partnership firm, was a licensed manufacturer of chewing tobacco under the brand names "BABUL", "JANAK" etc., falling under erstwhile T.1.4 11(5) CET and presently falling under Heading 2404.41 CET 1985. The firm was filing price-lists under Section 4 CESA for clearance of excisable goods in Part IV (sale through related persons) which were approved by the Department. The price lists declared that M/s. Babul Agency was their all-India sole selling agent and prices of the sole selling agent were approved as normal price under provision (iii) to Section 4(1)(a).3. M/s. Babul Products filed a Writ Petition in the Gujarat High Court in 1979, making a grievance against the stand taken by the Department that the petitioner's man...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »