Delhi Court February 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Modella Woollens Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT236; 1995(77)ELT536(Del)
Sunanda Bhandare, J. 1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of processing of wool tops and blended wool tops by admixture with duty paid synthetic fibre. During the course of routine inspection by the Central Excise Inspection Group on 15-9-1977 the petitioner's accounts maintained at the Chandigarh factory were scrutinised and as a sequel to the inspection, respondent No. 4 issued a show cause notice dated 27-10-1977. In the said show cause notice it was alleged that in the course of inspection it was detected that the petitioner had willfully supressed facts and misdeclared the contents in regard to the percentage of wool so as to evade duty on wool tops under Tariff Item No. 43 and thereby declared the goods as duty paid. The petitioner was, thereforee, required to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for contravention of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53, 173G and 173F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner submitted a reply denying...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. La-medicA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR327(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law in respect of the assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty is impossible under section 271 (2) Whether, even after the declaration made under section 14 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, onus lay on the Department to prove that there was concealment of income (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessed could be said to have discharged the onus which lay on it under the Explanationn to section 271 ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that, in respect of the said assessment years, the assessments were completed by the Income-tax Officer. Subsequently, a raid was conducted on the premises of the assessed under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act and certain documents were seized. Before any further proceedings could be taken...
Pratap Singh Vs. Tara Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT684; 1992RLR239
D.K. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) is directed against the two orders both dated 26 April, 1991 of Shri S.N. Dhingra, Addl. District Judge, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner (Defendant No. 1) under Section 151 of the Code and allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) against the order of the trial Court whereby the application of the said respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code was dismissed. (2) Since I have heard the parties at length, I propose to dispose of the petition finally at the show cause stage. (3) On the basis of a deed of dissolution dated 20 June 1988, admittedly signed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, claiming that it had been implemented in part, in that the building bearing No. C-72, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase Ii, New Delhi had been divided into two portions by construction of a puce wall in the hall, the western portion going to the plaintiff and...
Vidur Mehta and Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT59
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This writ petition has been filed by two students appearing for Class Xii Examination in the All India Senior Secondary Examination 1992 being held by respondents 1 and 2 and starting from 3 March, 1992. The challenge is to introduction of the multiple sets of question papers for the students in Delhi only. (2) The first respondent conducts public examinations at the Secondary and Senior Secondary levels for students in affiliated schools all over the country and even abroad. The petitioners say that for the earlier years there used to be only one set of question papers for students all over the country but this year for the students of the affiliated schools in Delhi the respondents have introduced the use of multiple sets of question papers in the examination halls/rooms. (3) The petitioners say there is no basis for adopting such a dual system one for Delhi students and the other for students of other States. They say it is discriminatory. The reason for adopting ...
P.K. Parmar and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2499; 48(1992)DLT35; 1992(23)DRJ109; 1992RLR179
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) The petitioners, 30 in number, have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) for quashing the orders of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) directing the various banks, financial Institutions and Post offices with which the petitioners have their respective accounts, to freeze those accounts. The Cbi claims to have exercised such powers under Section 102 of the Code. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that petitioners 1 and 4-who are brothers have been doing business of the manufacture and sale of phosphate fertilizers in Punjab. Initially they started this business in partnership with four others (not parties to the present petition) under the name and style of M/s Punjab Fertilizers & Pesticide Industries (PFPI for short) with its registered office at Amritsar. The firm continued its business up to 8.6.83 when it was dissolv...
Umesh Saxena and anr. Vs. Asharfi Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT698; (1992)IILLJ631Del
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present appeal is directed against the order dated Oct. 4, 1990. of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Delhi, wherein the respondent Shri Goverdhan Dass, who is now represented by his legal representatives, was awarded compensation for the amount of Rs. 33.600.00 and imposition of penalty amount of RS.10,000.00 and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the compensation amount from the date on the accident, till the date of actual recovery. The learned Commissioner noticed that the appellant Umesh Saxena in his statement on oath had already admitted that the respondent Goverdhan Dass used to drive the car to take him to his office from his house and vise versa. He has also admitted that the respondent used to drive car to outstation, as well as, for the performance of his official duties, as manager of M/s Milk Food Ltd. The averment of the appellant, 700 Mr Umesh Saxena that the respondent Shri Goverdhan Dass, was employed by him in his personal capac...
Suraj Bhan Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT15
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The petitioner is working as an Assistant Manager(Depot) since 1971. In this petition, as originally framed, the petitioner had prayed that the impending departmental proceedings against him on the same charges as that of the criminal prosecution in which he was acquitted, bequashed. The admission Bench on 17.11.1989 issued the notice as to why rule nisi be not issued and stayed the. departmental enquiry. In spite of the stay of enquiry proceeding the respondent made out that the enquiry was completed before the receipt of the stay order and the punishment was imposed of stoppage of three increments for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. The petitioner was not served with a copy of the final order in the departmental proceeding. The same was annexed with the counter affidavit to the original writ petition.Thereafter the writ petition was amended, challenging the said order also.(2) In the writ petition the petitioner has also claimed that he should have been promoted at the...
Texma Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Dhan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT249; [1992(65)FLR742]; (1993)IIILLJ208Del
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This bunch of writ petitions is directed against the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. These petitions raise the common question of law and I will proceed to dispose of the same by one common order.(2) It will only be necessary to give broad facts, with regard to the firstpetition, to determine the nature of controversy between the parties. Respondent No. 1 joined the service of the petitioner company, which was at that time known as Birla Textiles on 1/01/1943. On Jan 2/01/1964 he was allotted quarter in the premises of the said Mill. The respondent retired from service on 16/06/1983. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 was allotted quarter on the basis of the license fee of Rs. 3.75.00 per month, on the condition that he will vacate the accommodation within' 4 days of the cessation of the service, from the management, but he did not do so nor he obtai...
Ganesh Extrusion Artistries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: (1992)LC346Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that by virtue of the amendments made in the Central Excise Tariff Item 27(f) and Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Finance Bill, 1980 'Lacquering or printing or both of plain containers in relation to Aluminium' became excisable with effect from 19-6-1980. The appellants' case was that printed Aluminium tubes valued at Rs. 1,25,630.14 having been manufactured by them prior to 18-6-1980 were not chargeable to Central Excise duty even though they were cleared after imposition of duty on lacquered or printed Aluminium tubes on 19-6-1980. The Assistant Collector in his order dated 31-3-1983 confirmed a demand of Rs. 55,277.27 of Printed Aluminium Tubes held in stock by the appellants on 18-6-1980. He also rejected the appellants claim for deduction of duty on the plain aluminium tubes used in the manufacture of the pr...
Kool TIn Printers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT584TriDel
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of crown corks. They obtained Import Licence dated 19-2-1983 for import of Spot Coating Machine and Automatic Metal Decorating Press and applied for registration of the contract as Project Import on 25-2-1983 under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. The appellants were directed to approach the sponsoring authority for obtaining recommendatory letter and from March 1983 onwards the appellants wrote to the sponsoring authority in this regard. On 25-1-1984, the Director of Industries intimated to the appellants that their case of Project Import will be considered as and when they made arrangements for the premises, power and Municipal Corporation Licence. In the meanwhile, the machines arrived at Bombay and were subsequently transferred to the warehouse at Okhla, New Delhi. By letter of 7-5-1985 the Director of Industries wrote to the Asstt. Collector of Customs informing the Customs Department that the case of the unit has been recommen...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »