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.
Ajay Kumar Goel Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT183; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)445
M.C. Jain, J.(1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule D.B, According to the petitioner, the petitioner was the highest bidder of the shop in question and 25 per cent of the money was accepted from the petitioner on 19th June, 1990 and thereafter, the petitioner received a communication for the return of the cheque although the communication stated that tile petitioner has been declared successful in the auction held on 19th June, 1990. The respondent's case is that the petitioner's highest bid was not accepted by the Vice-Chairman. Conditions of Auction clearly lay down that the bid accepted by the Officer conducting the auction is subject to confirmation by the Competent Authority, The respondent has produced the document Ext. R-2, in which there is mention of 18 auctions and it was proposed that the auction at Seriall nos. 1, 5 and 18 may not be accepted as the bid was only marginally higher than the reserve price. This proposal is marked 'A' approved by the Vice-Chairman ...
Collr. of Cus. Vs. Neeraj Newspaper Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC399Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Customs, Calcutta has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.Briefly the facts of the case are that respondents Neeraj Newspaper Associates (Pvt.) Ltd., Kadamkuan, Patna had imported 2 numbers of photo composing machines equipped with display screen, English/Devnagari keyboard, type setting unit and standard equipment and 4 numbers of 5404 (40K) Off-line keyboards for English/Devnagari.The goods were examined on the original bill of entry and the contents were found to be:- (1) 2 Nos. of photo composing machines, Model 4560W with standard accessories and (2) 4 Nos. of 5404 (40K) VDI Off-line keyboards for English/Devnagari.The dispute is in regard to the classification of the 4 Nos. of VDI Off-line keyboards which had been imported in addition to the keyboards already fitted with the photo composing machines. The Assistant Collector had examined the issue of classification of 5004 (40K) VDI offline keyboard...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. J.S. Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT181; 1991(20)DRJ351; 1992RLR81
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The only question of fact which is involved in this writ petition is as to what is the value of the land in question, namely, E-365 Greater Kailash Ii, New Delhi in the year 1972 when the respondent. No. 1 started constructing the house.(2) In the assessment order, the Deputy Assessor & Collector took the value of land at Rs. 300.00 per sq. yard. This value was challenged by respondent No. 1 in appeal. The Addl. District Judge, by the impugned order dated 12th October, 1987, tool into consideration the fact that the property was purchased by respondent No. 1 in 1971 at the rate of Rs. 80.00 per sq. yard. After looking into consideration that the construction commenced in the year 1972 and that the plot in question was undeveloped he fixed the rate at Rs. 120 per sq. yard. It is this finding which is challenged before us.(3) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Dda has fixed the rate of defense Colony for the year 1972 at Rs. 300 per ...
Jyotsna Holding (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD430(Delhi)
Assessment order granting depreciation an aircraft at the rate of 40 per cent instead of 30 per cent was erroneous and prejudicial.Admittedly depreciation had been erroenously granted by the assessing officer at the rate of 40 per cent instead of 30 per cent, the relevant item of the depreciation was item 1 of Appendix 1, Part I, Clause II(D)(1) of depreciation schedule. Therefore, the jurisdiction under section 263 was rightly assumed by the Commissioner.1. The assessee is aggrieved of the consolidated order dated 12-3-1990 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi III, New Delhi for assessment years 1985-86 to 1987-88 under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee M/s. Jyotsna Holding Pvt. Ltd., 411, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi is a private limited company which was incorporated on 31-12-1983. The first assessment year of the assessee is the assessment year 1985-86 for which the accounting year ended on 31-1-1985. For the subsequent years the...
The National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bhanot Engineering ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi238; 1991(2)ARBLR57(Delhi); 1991RLR230
ORDER1. This is a petition u/ S. 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying that Umpire be appointed as per agreement dated 12-1-1963.2. In this case two arbitrators were appointed by this Court on 17-1-1978. According to Cl. 16 of the agreement between the parties; which is an arbitration Clause; in the event of difference of opinion between the arbitrators the dispute was to be referred and decided by an Umpire to be nominated by the arbitrators before the arbitrators enter upon reference. The Umpire was appointed by the arbitrators on 11-8-1978.3. It is stated in this petition that the arbitrators initiated arbitration proceedings and 'called upon the parties for 28-8-78, 14-2-79,22-3-79 and 24-5-79'. The petitioner entered appearance before the arbitrators, but the respondent herein was not present. It has also been alleged that the arbitrators neglected and refused to act as arbitrators in spite of the petitioner writing various letters to the arbitrators. Consequently, the petitioner...
Bachittar Singh and Another Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2629; 1991(21)DRJ65
Jaspal Singh. J.1. Hominibus plenum, amices vacuum (full of men, empty of friends) rings true of House No. 207/15, Parkash Mohalla. Garhi. Lajpat Nagar and some of its residents. Karam Singh is its owner. He lives in the ground floor with his wife Resham Kaur and son Tarlochan Singh. His eldest son Bachittar Singh lived with his family on the first floor, while Gurpal Singh, the other son sired by him, had gone to Dubai to dig gold. His wife's name is Ravinder Kaur. At the ripe age of sixty-four and with grown up children well-settled in their avocations, one expects a life of contentment with an aura of sang froid. However, for Karam Singh it must have been a dream shattered. We find him in trouble a capite ad calcem. He was at daggers drawn with Bachittar Singh. Love had given way to acrimony. There were frequent quarrels, complaints to the police and even litigation. The bone of contention was the first floor. Whereas Karam Singh wanted Bachittar Singh to vacate it, Bachittar Singh ...
Delhi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT234; [1992]84STC271(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question to this Court for our consideration : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a penalty under section 22A(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, is justified ?' 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the dealer was required to furnish quarterly returns of the sales made by it. In respect of the first quarter ending 30th of June, 1968 the dealer filed a return on 3oth July, 1968, giving a figure of Rs. 1,10,888. Subsequently, the dealer filed a revised return under section 10(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. By the revised return the taxable sales were increased by Rs. 25,00,000. 3. A show cause notice was issued as to why penalty should not be levied under section 22A(1) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of the sale. No one appeared on behalf of the dealer and vide order dated 15th January, 1973, penalty of Rs. 25...
Teka (Deceased) Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT373
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of seven appeals beingR.F.A. Nos. 43 to 49 of 1971 arising out of the award of the learned Additional District Judge dated 2/09/1970 in L.A.C. No. 216 of 1966.(2) The land belonging to the appellants situate in village Ber Sera came to be acquired for the planned development of Delhi. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 1 3/11/1959 and declaration under Section 6 was published on 6/01/1964. Thereafter, notices were issued under Section 9 and ultimately the Land Acquisition Collector made his award on 9/12/1964 grantingRs. 2.000.00 per bigha as compensation. On matter being carried in reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge, Delhi by his award dated 1 1/03/1970 enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,000.00 per bigha tors. 4.500.00 per bigha. The appellants, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded in their favor, have filed this appeal.(3) This Court in Kanahya ...
Renu Kathuria Vs. H.K.L. Kathuria
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: I(1991)DMC511
C.L. Chaudhry, J.1. This civil miscellaneous main petition filed by Smt. Renu Kathuria is directed against the order dated 21-12-1989 passed by the Guardian Judge, Delhi, by which the minor was required to continue meeting the respondent till the disposal of the petition. On 19-9-1987 Shri H.K.L. Kathuria, the respondent in this petition filed a petition under Sections 7 and 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 before the District Judge, Delhi against Smt. Renu Kathuria, praying therein that he may be appointed as guardian of the minor child, Master Anshul. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the grand father of the minor male child Anshul Kathuria, whose custody is with Smt. Renu Kathuria, respondent in that petition. It is stated that the respondent was married to the son of the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Kathuria on 16-6-1983 at Delhi. Out of the wedlock Anshul was born on 25-5-1984. Unfortunately on 5-10-1986 Ashok Kumar Kathuria died in an accident. The respondent l...
Vids Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT570TriDel
1. This is an application arising from the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay confiscating 69 bales (36 bales of synthetic acrylic waste and 33 bales of wool waste) with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine, levying duty under Heading 5505.10 of the Customs Tariff (on acrylic synthetic waste on the value as applicable to wool waste) and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 in the following circumstances.2. The appellants herein imported a consignment of wool waste and sought at clearance of the same against an import license valid for of wool waste. The goods were examined on 27-12-89 under first check procedure by the Dock Appraising Staff and on physical examination, the goods were found to consist of 3 categories as under :- 3. 36 bales weighing 5764 kgs contained Blended Fibreous material of wool and synthetic.Representative samples were drawn and on analysis, it was found that the goods contained in 36 bales are composed of 63 per cent to 73.96 per cent polyacr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »