Delhi Court May 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.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Pragati Builders and N.R.D.C. of In ... Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi212; 45(1991)DLT264; 1991(21)DRJ88
Mohd Sharmim, J. (1) This writ petition and appeal raise a very interesting and important question of law as to whether the cost of a Lift installed in a building is to be taken into account while fixing the Rateable Value of a building? The next pertinent question which falls for decision is as to whether in case of a building which has been constructed at various stages and at different periods of time, the cost of land is to be apportioned and the satire cost of land cannot be taken into consideration at the first instance while determining the Rateable Value of the building(2) Civil Writ Petition No. 3281 of 1989 arose out of the judgment and order dated 5th March, 1989 passed by Shri S.C. Mittal, learned Additional District Judge.(3) Learned lower court was of the view that the cost a of lift could not be taken into account while fixing the Rateable Value of a building, i.e. the property bearing No. C-15, JanakPuri, New Delhi. He was further of the opinion that the cost of the ent...
M.G. JaIn Co. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertakings and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT336; 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)472; ILR1992Delhi82; 1991LabIC1898
Sat Pal, J.(1) In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the promotions appointments of respondents 4 to 7 to the post of assistant accountant, accounts superintendent and assistant finance officer/assistant general accountant and of respondents 8 to 17 to the post of senior clerks which have been made in pursuance to the agreement/decision dated 11th January, 1974 of the General Manager (E), Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'undertaking'). The petitioners have also prayed for restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from giving effect to either the said decision or to the Government of India instructions relating to reservation of vacancies for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or other otherwise making such reservations and promotions on that basis.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that before the establishment of undertaking which is one of the Municipal Authorities for the Corporation there was a Delhi State...
Thakur Dass Gulati Vs. Faqir Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT463
Santosh Dnggal, J.(1) This is landlord's revision petition filed under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control. Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 29th October 1983, dismissing the eviction petition filed under section 14(l)(c) read with section 25-B of the Act, on the plea of personal requirement. (2) The Additional Rent Controller did not find the plea of bona fide requirement for personal residence of the landlord and his family established on record, and thus dismissed the eviction petition. Mr. Makhija, during the course of arguments, has pointed out that one of the factors which the Additional Rent Controller took into consideration while recording a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove that there was any bona fide requirement for the tenancy premises, was that he had since shifted to Gurgaon. Learned counsel has urged that there is total misappreciation of evidence because t...
Ashwini Vanaspati Industries (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC185Tri(Delhi)
1. By an order dated 22-2-1988, Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara has demanded a duty of Rs. 3,70,109.75 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules on soap illicitly manufactured and removed by the appellants during the period February, 1983 to September, 1984 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs under Rule 173Q. Allegations of fraud, wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts were made in the Show Cause Notice and the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was invoked. Alongwith the appeal, the appellants had also filed a stay application for waiving pre-deposit of the duty and penalty under Section 35F of the Act. By an order dated 6-3-1988 (Order Stay No.55/88-C), the Tribunal had decided that the appellants should deposit the duty in full in cash, and had waived the deposit of penalty during the pendency of the appeal . It appears that the duty amount was deposited on 14th July, 1988 and this fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal in an application f...
Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC680Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported from Japan combing machinery for their textile mills against Bill of Entry No. C-220 dt. 5-12-1981. The assessable value of the goods was declared in the Bill of Entry as Rs. 11,37,3767-after deduction of discounts of 8% and 4 1/2% allowed by the supplier. However, after disallowing the discount of 4l/2% the Customs worked out the assessable value as Rs. 11,77,681/-. The appellants claimed refund of duty amounting to Rs. 23,091/- on the grounds that the assessable value ought to have been worked out after allowing the further discount of 4 2%. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim for refund on the grounds that the additional discount of 4l/2% was not deductible for arriving at the assessable value since it was in the nature of a special discount having been extended on the grounds of long standing business dealings between the buyer and seller. The appeal filed against the Asstt. Collector's order was also rejected by Collector (Appeals) on the grounds th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nicholas Laboratories India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC666Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Nicholas Laboratories (India) Ltd. loan licensee of M/s. Tamil Nadu Dadha Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Dadha Nagar, Madras, are manufacturers of patent and proprietary medicines under the erstwhile Tariff Item 14E and the present Chapter Heading 30 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents were manufacturing "Melalite Cream" and they had filed classification list Nos. 3/85,5/85 and 1/86-87 for their product Melalite Cream classifying the same as mentioned earlier. Their classification as patent and proprietary medicines was approved on 21-7-1986. The change introduced in the description of cosmetics under 14F(1) in the Finance Bill of 1985 to include sunburn preventive preparations and sun tan preparation against skin irritants and also the explanation cosmetic and toilet preparation included ...
Collector of Customs Vs. K.C.A. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC93Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot, seeking reference to the jurisdictional High Court of certain questions of law said to arise out of Misc. Order No. 345/90-C dated 14.12.1990 in Customs Appeal No. 2533/85-C.2. We have heard Shri L. Narasimhamurthy, DR, for the Collector and Smt. Shanta Thiruvenktadam, advocate, for the respondents.3. While reiterating the submissions made in the application, the learned DR fairly pointed out, in reply to a query from the Bench, that since the Tribunal's order is an interim order and not a final order disposing of the appeal, no reference would lie to the High Court. He is right in this submission in view of the provisions of Section 130 of the Customs Act which provides for reference on questions of law arising out of an order under Section 129B of the Customs Act not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the va...
Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC541Tri(Delhi)
1. These 3 appeals arise from a common order of the Collector (Appeals) and arc hence being heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The issue for determination herein is whether the appellants' claim for refund of duty is barred by limitation, the refund claim having been filed after the period of six months from the date of adjustment of final assessment.3. The appellants imported newsprint for the purpose of newspapers published by them. The levy of customs duty on import of newsprint was challenged by the apel-lants in 1981 by the filing of a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court on the ground, inter alia, that the same amounted to unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 19(i)(a). The Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the Writ Petition by its order dated 20-7-1981. An order was passed directing the appellants to pay customs duty on newsprint at the rate of Rs. 550/- per metric t...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Krishna Silicate and General
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT855TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, seeking rectification of an alleged mistake in the Tribunal's order No. 544/90-C dated 30-5-1990. It is pointed out that the show cause notice in the proceedings was issued by the Assistant Collector under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and, therefore, the observation of the Tribunal that the show cause notice had been issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act was not correct. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of O.R.G.Systems v. Collector of Central Excise,Piya Pharmaceuticals Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 1985 (19) ELT 272 have been relied upon in support of the proposition that the incorporation of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act in Central Excise Rule 9(2) was only for the purpose of limitation and did not import into the rule the whole procedure of Section 11A.2. We have heard Shri L. Narasimhamurthy, DR, for the applica...
Friends Auto India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD389(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's appeal against the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for not deducting tax from its interest of Rs. 92,652 which the assessee claimed as expenditure and instead of crediting the same to the accounts of the creditor credited it to an account titled 'interest payable account'. In response to the notice, the assessee contended that since the interest had neither been paid to the creditors nor credited to their accounts, there was no obligation on the assessee under Section 194 A to deduct tax. This contention was negatived by the assessing officer who took recourse to a Circular No. 288 dated 22-12-1980 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and levied an interest of Rs. 1380. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who also followed the said circular and held that there was no justification for the assessee to credit the interest to the interest payable account and not to the accounts of the credito...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »