Delhi Court January 1992 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.
O.R.G. Systems Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: (1992)(43)LC718Tri(Delhi)
1. The present Miscellaneous Application emerges from the Tribunal's Miscellaneous Order No. 8/89-A dated 24.1.1989 1989 (23) ECR 100 (Cegat SB-A). Shri K.S. Nanavati, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants with Shri K.M. Mehta, Advocate. He made a prayer for grant of necessary permission for withdrawal of the Miscellaneous application without prejudice to the appellants' right for challenging it before the proper appellate forum. Shri Chakrabarti, the learned SDR, who appeared on behalf of the Revenue does not object. After hearing both the sides, necessary permission for withdrawal of the Miscellaneous application is granted without prejudice to the appellants' right for challenging the Miscellaneous Order No. 8/89-A dated 24.1.1989 [1989 (23) ECR 100 (Cegat SB-A)] before the appellate forum or any other remedy available to the appellants in accordance with law. For statistical purposes the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed....
i.S.P.L. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC366
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of fastners such as Hub Bolts, Centre Bolts, U. Clamps etc. for use as parts of motor vehicles. The appellants were classifying these products under Tariff item 34A up to 24-3-1977 and under Tariff Item 68 from 7-10-1977 onwards. The Superintendent of Central Excise, AR-III, Rajkot in his letters dated 4-12-1980 and 11-12-1980 advised the appellants to file fresh classification list classifying the goods under Tariff Item 52.Thereafter the appellants filed classification list Nos. 2/80-81, 3/80/81, 2/82,3/82-83 and 4/82. They cleared the goods under Tariff Item 52 under protest and simultaneously filed refund claims on the ground that goods were assessable under tariff item 68. Relying upon a series of decisions of the Tribunal the Assistant Collector held that the goods had been correctly assessed under Tariff Item 52 and rejected the refund claims. By the impugned orders the appeals filed against the orders passed by the Assistant C...
N.R. Dongre Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: (1992)40ITD574(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1983 -84, the sole question is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was right in upholding the disallowance of deduction for Rs. 1,98,000 under Section 80GGA of the Income-tax Act in respect of the contribution made by the assessee to M/s Ramakrishna Vivekanand Mission.2. The assessee a Chief Executive of Usha International, a public limited company, of which he was neither a Director nor a shareholder made a donation of Rs. 2 lacs to Ramakrishna Vivekanand Mission by way of two cheques of Rs. 1 lac each drawn on Bank of Baroda on 22-3-1983.These cheques were given to one Mr. Vipin Mehra, an authorised agent of Ramakrishna Vivekanand Mission to collect donations on behalf of the said Mission. The said Vipin Mehra opened a bank account in the name of the Mission without its authority and encashed these cheques in Delhi on 25-3-1983, pa...
Duncan Services Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR264(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated March 23, 1978, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle, New Delhi, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. Through the said notice, the petitioner was informed that the Income-tax Officer has reasons to believe that some income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner informed the authorities that they had supplied all the necessary information and documents along with the original return and furnished the account books and other information as called for by the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner also requested the authorities to inform him of the reasons for the allegation of income escaping assessment. No reasons were furnished. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition. 2. In the counter-affidavit, the reason furnished is as follows : 'That, after ...
Satish Sawhney Vs. Usha Vujh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ149
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This is an application by the plaintiff(here inafter referred to as appplicant) under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for the restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default vide order dated 25.9.1991 by this Court. It is supported by an affidavit. (2) The case of the plaintiff is that counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Amit S. Chandha could not appear before the Court as he was busy in some other court. Consequently, the case was called out and dismissed in default in his absence. (3) Defendant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party for the sake of the convenience) has resisted the case of the applicant, inter alia, on the following grounds: that the present application is false and frivolous. It is liable to be dismissed. The application is not maintainable in as much as the counsel for the applicant expressed his inability to file replication or to admit or deny the documents put forward by defendant No.2 on 14.8.1992 and 23.9.1991 on the ground tha...
H.L. Seth Vs. Wearwell Cycle Company (India) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: I(1992)BC454; 46(1992)DLT599; 1992(22)DRJ354
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) These two appeals are directed against order dated May 20, 1987, of a Company Judge in which certain directions have been given by the Company Judge, inter alia, directing the Official Liquidator to substitute the names of S/Shri A.K.Mishra and Brahm Arenja-respondent No.3 and their nominees as per the transfer deeds on record in place of the members as per annexure 'A' & 'B' to the agreement dated November 28, 1984, in the register of members of the Company subject to the condition that Shri Mishra would produce requisite permission from the Reserve Bank of India for his being brought on record as member of the Company and S/Shri A.K.Misra and Brahm Arenja would be treated as creditors of the Company in place of those mentioned in annexure 'D' to the aforesaid agreement as well as in place of Punjab National Bank in respect of the debts as appearing in the statement of affairs filed under Section 454 of the Companies Act and that members appearing in the list of memb...
M.N. Gupta and anr. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi212; 47(1992)DLT673; 1992(22)DRJ293
Arun Kumar, J.(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the communication dated 13th August 1991 whereby petitioner No.2, who is a member of the Governing Body of the Daulat Ram College (hereinafter referred to as the college) has been removed from membership and the communication dated 14th August 1991 whereby the Vice Chancellor has nominated seven additional members to the Governing Body of the college for one year. Petitioner No. I has filed the present petition as Chairman and Member of the Governing Body of the college while petitioner No.2 has filed the petition on his own behalf. The petitioners have raised various grounds in the writ petition in support of their case. However, we have confined our decision to the challenge on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. We feel that the impugned actions of respondents 1 to 3 are liable to be struck down on this ground alone.(2) The facts giving rise to the petition are that the college was started i...
Madan Lal Mittal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT325
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition impugnes the validity of notifications under Section 4, Section 6, and Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4 notification was issued on January 23, 1965; and Section 6 notification was issued on December 7,1966, and Sections 9 and 10 notifications on March 16, 1978 respectively. No award was made in respect of proposed acquisition of the said land within the statutory period. (2) Petitioner filed his claims and objections on April 10, 1978, before the Land A question Collector, reserving his legal rights and without prejudice of notice under Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act. Petitioner submitted that after the issuance of notification under Section 6 he served a notice on the respondents on November 9, 1977 under Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, as he was entitled to get the land released from compulsory acquisition under Sub-Section 2 of Section 55. The respondents have received the said notice under Sectio...
Subhash Chander Chopra Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: I(1992)DMC487
V.B. Bansal, J.1. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Subhash Chander Chopra petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings in case State v. Subhash Chander Chopra. FIR No, 235/84, Police Station Tilak Nagar under Section 498-A I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petitions are that the petitioner was married to Smt. Sunita respondent No. 2 on 30th April, 1983. However, on account of differences and disharmony the petitioner filed a divorce petition against respondent No. 2. She lodged FIR 235/84 on 30th June, 1984 under Section 498A IPC. During the pendency of the proceedings efforts made for reconciliation but failed and ultimately both the parties agreed for amicable settlement. Accordingly a decree for divorce by mutual consent was passed on 14th December, 1988 when cash was also paid in lump sum to Sunita towards full and final settlement of her disputes.3. Statements of the petitioner as also respondent No. 2 have been recorded toda...
Union of India Vs. N. Vasudevan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(26)DRJ389
Y. Krishan, J.(1) This Revision Petition is directed against the order, of 8th February, 1992 made by the State Commission of Tamil Nadu in Appeal Petition No. 155/91. (2) The facts of the case briefly are: (3) On 6th of October. 1988 the respondent complainant registered for a new telephone connection to be installed at his address P-35, Ahamed Colony, Ramalinga Nagar.Tiruchirapalli. When the registration for telephone connection matured some time in 1991, the respondent intimated change of his address and desired that his new telephone be installed at 12, Shopping Complex. Salai Road. Tiruchirapalli. The appellant made investigation into the bonafides of the applicant at this point of time and found that the applicant was not residing at the new address given by him at which the telephone was to be installed. In fact he was not residing in Tirichirapalli and his permanent address is at Neiveli. On these considerations, the appellant refused to provide the telephone connection at the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »