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.
Shashi Bawa Vs. Rumneek Bala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: I(1991)DMC386
R.L. Gupta, J.1. This revision by the petitioner-wife is directed against an order dated 1-12-88 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi by which he increased the maintenance amount payable to the wife and her child from Rs. 1300/ to Rs. 1600/- per month.2. The brief grounds on which this revision is filed are that the learned trial court having found that the respondent-husband had suppressed his income, should have permitted the wife to lead evidence to show the correct income of the husband for fixing the maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife had summoned official of the income tax department as also some employee from the office of the employer of the husband to show the correct income of the husband. But the Court did not permit the evidence to be recorded. It is then alleged that the pendente lite maintenance should have been fixed at Rs. 1500/- per month for the wife and Rs. 1000/- for the child.3. Notice to show cause was issued against the re...
Basheshar Pictures Vs. Prem Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: 4(1991)DLT699; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)466
P.N. Nag, J.(1) In suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 92,000.00 due to the plaintiff respondent before the trial Court, an application under order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been moved by the defendant petitioner for answering certain it errogatories by the plaintiff-respondent which are relevant, according to him, for determining the point in controversy and relates to the issues framed by the Court. The Court has dismissed that application on 30l1.1990 by holding that the interrogatories sought for by the defendant petitioner do not relate to the evidence of the plaintiff and in fact these interrogatories are in the nature of cross-examination. Against this order, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner respondent which was later converted as civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.(2) During the course of bearing a preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel ...
Sarla Kumari Vs. H.L. Dua
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT668; 1991RLR176
Santosh Dnggal, J. (1) Pursuant to our last order, affidavit of the Chief Secretary has been filed. It has been stated therein that the menace of unlawful constructions has a.ssumed alarming proportion and that the duty in primarily cast on the Corporation to identify the violations and to proceed accordance with law. The Chief Secretary has further stated that the Administration can give police aid for carrying out demolition of such construction on receipt of requisition from the Corporation. The modifications which have been made in the bye-laws have also been clarified in this affidavit. According to the revised bye-laws excess coverage up to 20% per floor, subject to a maximum of 450 sq. ft. and compounding of infringement of setbacks up to a maximum limit of 2 ft., on payment of compounding fee, have been notified, It is, however made clear that the said relaxation applies only to constructions which come up prior to the date of notification i.e. 13th December, 1990 Cases of futu...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)(34)ECC105
1. The Revenue has appealed against the Order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay in Order No. M-232/BII-151/87, dated 1-4-1987, who has upheld the assessee's contention that the goods manufactured by them namely wall coverings of textile base fabric on which PVC film is laminated and is classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 39.18 of the CET Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) by virtue of note 9 of Chapter 39.2. The main ground made out in this appeal is on the basis of the definition of plastic appearing in note 1 of Chapter 39. The Revenue has contended that the goods falling under Heading No. 39.01 to 39.14 will only be covered as "plastics". They have stated that the goods have been laminated with cotton fabrics and therefore the goods would not be covered squarely by note 9 of Chapter 39. HSN explanatory note at page 554 Vol. II is also relied on. They contend that the impugned goods can be bent manually around a cylinder of diameter of 7 mm without fracturing at the ambient tem...
Swastika Metal Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC164Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.175-CE/DLH/88, dated 26-4-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. This appeal relates to denial of MODVAT credit. The Assistant Collector rejected MODVAT credit for the transitional period on the ground that application for transitional period under Rule 57H was filed on 10-6-1986, i. e., after the expiry of more than two months from 31-3-1986 which was the last date upto which transitional period credit could be allowed. This view was confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal.3. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S. K. Sharma, learned JDR for the respondent.4. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, submitted that neither any time limit is specified nor was application required to be filed under Rule 57H(1) of the Central Excise Rules. Transitional provisions in respect of the MODVAT Scheme are contained in Rul...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. R.M. Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC68Tri(Delhi)
1. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, they have sought classification of the products manufactured by the respondents under Tariff Item 68 as against the classification under Tariff Item 25(16) as castings of Iron and Steel, not elsewhere specified.2. The respondents M/s. R.M. Engineering Works, filed a revised classification list 1/84-85, dated 2-06-1984 for the products manufactured by them Elbows, Tees, Coupling, Flanges, Union, Cross, Nipple, Plug, Cap, Bend, Screw, Flanges, Red Elbow, Red tees, Red socket. They had sought classification under Tariff Item 25(16) claiming exemption under Notification 208/83, dated 1-08-1983 as galvanized cast iron pipe fittings and malleable iron castings of different shapes and sizes. The Assistant Collector has held that the castings after being cleaned and straightened by process of Tumblasting, annealing, short blasting, they are subjected to galvanizing and threading and thereby get converted to pipe fittings and they no longer remain as cast...
Bharat Kumari Sehgal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC488Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a ROM application filed with reference to the Tribunal's order No. A/266/90-NRB, dated 24 April, 1990.2. The learned counsel stated that this case relates to foreign tourist of Indian origin who had come to India to meet her parents and to attend a marriage.3. She had brought some jewellery with her which were confiscated by the Additional Collector of Customs, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi Shri N.K.P. Sinha. However in the spot adjudicating order his designation had been shown as D.C. Customs.4. Hence a question regarding the maintainability of appeal before CEGAT had arisen.5. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that Shri N.K.P. Sinha's designation has been wrongly shown as Deputy Collector. Actually he was Additional Collector; hence the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal.6. In support of this contention the following documents had been produced. (i) Copy of the order issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, posting Shri N.K.P. Sinha, as Add...
Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC502Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal preferred against the Order-in-Appeal No.1205-CH/88, dated 7-10-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The appellants had imported 80 barrels of Scotch Whisky. These goods were stored in the bonded warehouse. At the time of taking delivery it was found shortage in quantum apparently due to loss on account of evaporation. Before taking delivery they requested for 100% weighment of the goods so that they can claim refund later on the losses due to evaporation. However, the goods were cleared after making full payment of duty as per invoice but duty was paid under protest as it was endorsed in the bill of entry at the time of taking delivery on 20-2-1986. Subsequently, they have filed refund claim in respect of duty paid on the quantity of shortage which was noticed at the time of clearance. This refund claim has been rejected by the Assistant Collector as per order dated 25-3-1987 for the following reasons :- (i) The claimants have not appli...
Diwaker Engineers Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD197(Delhi)
1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 9-9-1987 passed by the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1983-84.2. The first ground assails the order of the CIT (Appeals) confirming the action of the ITO in framing the assessment by taking recourse to Section 153(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the assessee, the assessment framed by the ITO was time barred and hence it was invalid. In order to appreciate the plea, raised by the assessee, it will be necessary to suite a few facts.3. The assessee, a limited company, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1983-84 on 30th June 1982, declaring a loss of Rs. 37,689. A revised return was filed on 17-3-1986 and, therefore, the assessment in this case should have been normally completed by 16-3-1987 in view of the provisions contained in Clause (c) of Section 153(1). On 13-3-1987, the ITO recorded his satisfaction that the assessee has concealed income to the extent of Rs. 17,17,819 b...
Kohinoor Charitable Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD406(Delhi)
1. The assessee has claimed the benefit of Section 11 and Section 2(75) of the Income-tax Act and this claim has been refused to it on the ground that, the funds of the appellant trust have been utilized in such a manner to benefit the children of the settlor of this trust.2. The appellant trust's Balance Sheet as on 31-3-1985 showed a payment under the account 'Advance Rent' of Rs. 2,38,500. This was enquired by the assessing officer. The assessee had submitted that, the trust had taken on long lease a building from M/s. Atul Trust, by means of a lease deed dt. 16-3-1983. The lease deed stated the monthly rental to be Rs. 1,200 and the amount of deposit was Rs. 2,60,000 adjustable monthly of Rs. 1,000 against the rental. The lease of the building was also stated to be for running of a school. The trust finding it difficult to run the school, gave the premises free of any rent to Cambridge School of Society which actually was running a school.3. The assessing officer's objections are ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »