Delhi Court August 1991 Judgments

Madanlal Kanya Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(41)LC69Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s Madanlal Kanya has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.Simultaneously, a stay application was also filed. Shri N. Ramanathan, ld. consultant has appeared on behalf of the applicant and pleaded that there was denial of principles of natural justice. The appellant had filed a stay application dated 18.1.1991 which appears on page 27 of the paper-book and the Collector vide letter did. 20.2.1991 had intimated the appellant that he should deposit the amount on or before 15.3.1991 and in response to the letter did. 20.2.1991, the appellant had written vide letter did. 4.3.1991 to reconsider the decision and also grant a personal hearing without insisting upon the pre-deposit of the amount in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Ramanathan, the ld. consultant pleaded that instead of passing an order on the stay application the Collector (Appeals) straightway proceeds to decide the slay application as we...

Saiyed Sirajul Hasan Vs. Sh. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1992Delhi401

1. A question pristinely legal has given rise to this order. As the facts are not of much consequence, only a brief resume' would suffice.2. On February 7,1982 Syed Murtaza Ali Khan, who was one of the defendants, died and by order dated July 30, 1982 his legal representatives were brought on the record who filed their written statement in the Registry which was placed on the record of the suit. The matter rested there for years and came to the fore only while final arguments for disposal of the main suit were being heard and that too when Mr. B. D. Sharma representing the defendants referred to the pleas taken therein. It was time for Mr. N. P. Shankardass, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, to register his protest. His objection was that the legal representatives had at no time sought the leave of the Court, nor the court had granted any, to file additional written statement and consequently the filing of the written statement 'surreptitiously' In the Registry would not suffice. ...

Sohan Singh Basi and Another Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1992]194ITR339(Delhi)

B.N. Kirpal J.1. Sohan Singh Basi (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') has filed the present writ petition challenging the two notices issued under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act seeking to reopen the assessments for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was a shareholder of a company known as Continental Construction Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner held certain shared therein. For the assessment year 1973-74, a return was filed on August 20, 1973. Thereafter, a revised return was filed on January 1, 1975. Ultimately, the return was accepted and an assessment was made under section 16(1) of the Act. 3. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75, a return was similarly filed by the petitioner and an assessment was made under section 16(1) of the Act. 4. After the assessments had been made, notices were sent under section 17 seeking to reopen the said assessments. In order to appreciate the challenge to these two notices it will...

Sohan Singh Basi Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Del)218; 45(1991)DLT417; [1991]192ITR431(Delhi); 1991RLR485

Kirpal J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice issued under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on February 25, 1984, seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1975-76. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner had filed his return of wealth-tax disclosing a total wealth which was taxable at Rs. 1,95,906. In Part 6 of the return, the petitioner had disclosed that he had shares worth Rs. 20,500. The name of the company of which shares were held was not disclosed. However, a statement of wealth-tax as on March 31, 1975, was filed. This indicated that the petitioner had 200 equity shares of Rs. 100 each of Continental Construction Pvt. Ltd., valued at Rs. 20,000 and 5 equity shares of Rs. 100 each in Basi Agriculture Farm valued at Rs. 500. During the assessment proceedings, the income and expenditure account as well as the balance-sheet of the petitioner was filed with the Wealth-tax Officer. A certificate on behalf of Continental C...

Jagdish Chand Sharma Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 45(1991)DLT274

S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that on the basis of a pronote and a receipt dated 11.10.1984, alleged to have been executed by one Shri Jage Ram in favor of Shri B.R. Sharma, Shri B.R. Sharma obtained ex parte decree under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code from the Court of Shri G.S. Dhakha, Addl. District Judge, Delhi on 5.9.1988 against the legal heirs of Jage Ram deceased. Shri B.R. Sharma, decree holder, sought execution of the decree and when the warrant of attachment reached the legal heirs of Jage Ram deceased, they immediately moved the Court of the Addl. District Judge by filing an application for setting aside the decree and for recalling the order passed against them. That application is pending before the Addl. District Judge. Besides taking several grounds challenging that order, it has also been alleged that the pronote and the receipt forming the basis of the suit are forged ones. Shri Balraj Arya, son of Jage Ram also filed a criminal complaint ...

Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT618TriDel

1. These two appeals arise out of a common order-in-appeal dated 3-3-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.The facts of the case are that the appellants, herein, manufactured and cleared PVC Resins falling under Tariff Item 15A during 1982-83 and 1983-84 and claimed credit of duty under Rule 56AA under Notification 150/83, dated 13-5-1983. Rule 56AA was introduced in the Central Excise Rules in 1982 and it provides credit of duty paid on excisable goods cleared from a factory for home consumption under certain circumstances. Notification 150/83 was issued under this Rule. The Notification, briefly, granted exemption on excess clearances of certain specified goods. These excess clearances were to be calculated with reference to the base clearances to be determined in the manner prescribed in the notification. While scrutinising the appellants' claim under this notification in the form prescribed, therefor, there is a column No. 4, "Whether clearances of speci...

Manager, Stores and Purchases, Vs. Collector of Custom

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(40)LC481Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Indian Airlines have preferred this appeal against the order dated 16.11.1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Import Air Cargo, New Delhi by which he had confirmed the demand of customs duty of Rs. 26,84,888.70 as having been duty short levied at the time of finalisation of provisional assessment of airbus aircraft imported by the appellants herein. The facts of the case are as follows: 1A. The appellant, Indian Airlines entered into a purchase agreement with the prior approval of the Government of India for acquisition of 19 A-320 Airbus Aircraft from the Airbus Industries, France. The purchase agreement referred to above inter alia provided that the seller will grant to the buyer a credit memorandum of US $ 2 million for each of the firmly purchased A-320 Aircraft No. 1 to 19 and that this credit memorandum will be made available at each concerned aircraft delivery to reduce the final contract price. 1B. It was further agreed that the seller Airbus Industries ...

Collector of Customs Vs. Bombay Crown Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Collector of Customs, Bombay, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The said appeal was received in the Registry on the 28th day of February, 1991. A notice of hearing dated 8th March, 1991 listing the matter for hearing for 14th May, 1991 was issued, and when the matter was called on the said date Shri M.K. Sohal, learned JDR, had appeared on behalf of the appellant and had made a request for adjournment to file a day-to-day chart for explanation in the delayed submission of the appeal and also to produce the original records. There was also a request from respondents for adjournment. In the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned for today.2. When the matter was called, Shri S.K. Roy, learned JDR, has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He makes a request for adjournment. Shri Devan Parikh, learned Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the respondents, stated that he has come all the way from Ahmedabad, an...

Saravjeet Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1991)ACC454; 45(1991)DLT63

R.L. Gupta, J.(1) Revision is admitted. (2) The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A Indian Renal Code by learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 24.7.90 and ordered to be released on probation for a period of two years vide order dated 1.8.90. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Asj, Delhi vide judgment dated 24.11.90. The petitioner has filed this revision against the aforesaid orders.(3) The case against the petitioner is that on 6.7.89 at about 6.15 Pm he was driving a two-wheeler scooter DBV-338 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and committed an accident with one Smt. Janak Sharma in front of Kothi No. 98, Chander Nagar within the jurisdiction of Ps Janakpuri who later on succumbed to the injuries suffered by her In the accident.(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in this case, the petitioner was shown to the eye witness at the police station and the investigating officer did not meet any eye witness at the spot. He ...

O.P. Sethi Vs. the Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 45(1991)DLT426; 1992(22)DRJ210; 1991RLR451

D.K. Jain, J. (1) We are of the considered view that Rule 25(l)(c) is attracted in those cases where the properties are held benami. Having come to this conclusion, there seems to be little difficulty in holding that the said rule cannot apply in the cases where properties are acquired by transmission/devolution. We feel that Rules 25 and 35 of the said Rules have to be read in different contexts. The former takes care of the cases of acquisition of membership or its transfer and the latter the cases of transmission etc. The view, which we have taken, we feel, will give a harmonious construction to the provisions of the said Rules and bye-laws, referred to above. A contrary view, in our opinion, will not only make bye-law 9 redundant but may also lead to unreasonable and anomalous results. For example, member on being granted membership of a housing co-operative society constructs a house on the plot subleased in his favor. He registers his only heir as his nominee. During his life tim...