Delhi Court February 1992 Judgments

Union of India Vs. Ashwani Kumar Katoch

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 47(1992)DLT342

S.B. Wad, J. (1) This Lpa is filed by the Union of India against thejudgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7/07/1988. The learned Single Judge had quashed the show-cause notice dated 18.2.88 and the order of removal dated 15.11.78, passed by the Union of India against the respondent.The respondent was working as a Captain in the Army. He was served with a show-cause notice under Rule 14 of the Army Rules, calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be removed from service. The show-cause notice reads:-'Show-Cause' Notice Under Army Rule 14(1) It has come to notice that you addressed an application dated 13/08/1977 pertaining to service matters direct to Shri Shanti Bhushan, the Law Minister in violation of the provisions of para 557 'of Regulations for the Army,1962. In doing so you have committed grave irregularity and misconduct unbecoming the position, conduct and code of discipline expected of an ArmyOfficer.(2) It is further observed that this is not the first time you...

Suresh Sarvaria Vs. Kanta Pd. Garg

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 46(1992)DLT412

S.C. Jain, J.(1) Record perused. The respondent who is an employee of Ncert filed an eviction petition under Section 14) read with Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondent (Petitioner) from the tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. Summons as prescribed under Schedule Iii of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued to the tenant petitioner herein who appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend. Grounds taken by the petitioner were that the purpose of letting was residential-cum-commercial and that the respondent landlord did not need the premises in suit bonafide. The Rent Controller did not find any favor with both these pleas taken by the petitioner tenant and ultimately declined the request of the tenant to grant leave to defend and a decree for eviction was passed. Aggrieved this revision petition has been filed. (2) As far as the purpose of letting is concerned, in para 14 of the eviction petition it has been s...

Subhash Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(40)LC557Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are importers of woollen rags. They had imported 50 bales containing 18,988 Kgs. of woollen rags per s.s.v/Bhakti valued at Rs. 1,25,168 CIF for bill of entry No. 500/80. The.importers claimed clearance of the imported goods under OGL. The Customs House did not consider the goods to be falling under OGL for the following reasons- i) The goods had been declared as woollen rags. On examination of the goods, it was found that 60% of this consignment is synthetic rags and balance 40% as woollen rags. The department contended that the effective rate of duty on synthetic rags is 80% as against 20% on woollen rags. Hence, the importers were charged for misdeclaration of description of goods and held the same to be confiscable under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; ii) The rags were not in completely pre-mutilated condition as required under para 37 in Appendix 6 AM/85-88 Policy. It was alleged by the department that the goods were cut into two pieces which could be ...

Anup Kumar Malik Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT406TriDel

1. This is an appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original No.9/Cus/87 dated 2-3-1987 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 8-2-1985 the CIA (Police) Staff of Ludhiana searched from the godown of the appellant and recovered 786 Video Cassette tapes as per police seizure in connection with a case under Section 102 of the Cr. P.C. On intimation about the said recovery, the Customs staff visited the CIA office and examined the said goods recovered. On examination it was reasonably believed by the customs staff that these were contraband goods having been imported from a foreign country illegally and acquired possession unlawfully by the appellant in violation of the Import Control Restrictions and the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Accordingly, these were seized and taken over by the Customs for further action under the Customs law. In a follow up action and in reply to the show cause notice duri...

P.B. Textile Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(42)LC690Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s P.B. Textile Works have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Simultaneously, a stay application duly supported with an affidavit has also been filed. Shri A. Careem Khan, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He pleaded that the Tribunal vide Order No.302/89-D dated 29.8.1989 had remanded the matter to the Collector (Appeals) and the applicants have again come in appeal before the Tribunal. He pleaded that the amount in dispute is Rs. 54,600/-. He pleaded that the applicants had cleared polyester oriented yarn from Customs public Bonded warehouse under Bill of Entry No. 536/CWC dated 1.7.1983 and the clearance was permitted on 2.7.1983 and the effective rate of duty was Rs. 55/- per kg in terms of Notification No. 49/83 dated 1.3.1983. Subsequently, another notification No. 181/83 dated 1.7.1983 was issued and the effective rate of duty was Rs. 72/- per kg and this notification came to the kno...

Rajendra Nath Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)41ITD206(Delhi)

1. This is an assessee's second appeal arising out of his assessment for assessment year 1987-88. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.2. The only point arising in this appeal is about the determination of the cost of acquisition of two plots of land measuring 595 sq. mts.sold by the the assessee during the year under consideration for a total consideration of Rs. 1,04,086.3. The facts are that the assessee owned some agricultural lands at Sahibabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The said land was acquired for the purposes of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 16-7-1960 and 24-7-1968. Thereafter the possession of the land was taken from the assessee. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable to the assessee at Rs. 35,968. The assessee challenged the same and later on the Ghaziab...

National Organic Chemical Ind. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (06- ...

Court: Delhi

B. N. Kirpal, J. 1. The Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Delhi has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Aldrex 30 EC could not be treated as 'pesticide for plant protection' as mentioned in item No. 27 of the Third Schedule to the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and, therefore, not exempt from exigibility of sales tax ?'2. As per statement of facts, the dealer carries on the business of manufacture and sale of a number of items including pesticides. Under section 49 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, the dealer filed an application before the Commissioner, Sales Tax, for his opinion as to whether five items including Aldrex 30 EC fell within the ambit of entry 27 of the Third Schedule to the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and was thereby exempt from assessment to sales tax or not. The said entry reads as under :'Pesticides for plant protection.'3. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, came to the conclusio...

Eastern Dairies Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (06-02.1992)

Court: Delhi

B. N. Kirpal, J.1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions to this Court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that registration or validity thereof could be granted to the assessed from the date when it applied for seeking registration, i.e., July 7, 1975 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability for assessment operated against the assessed from June 1, 1975 when the notification issued by the Government amending the exempted items mentioned at Sl. Nos. 12 and 16 of Schedule II of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, was issued?(iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the delay, if any, in the submission of the application could not be condoned?' 2. On June 1, 1975, the Government issued a notification amending Schedule II of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, ...

Smt. Urmila Agnihotri Vs. State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993CriLJ950; 46(1992)DLT443; 1992(22)DRJ313

ORDER1. A revision petition was filed before this Court against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 12th November, 1991, under Ss. 132/135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. By this order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the order of the learned A.C.M.M. by which he convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced her to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, the grievance was made by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration indifferent health and serious ailment of the petitioner while awarding the sentence. The petitioner has placed medical certificate and other related documents before this court also. The petitioner has filed an affidavit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in which she had stated that her husband is suffering from angina and has undergone surgery in October, 1989. She is also an old women of 61 years of age and never before s...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Ahuja Furnishers (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1992)BC32; 46(1992)DLT717

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 order passed by the Addl. District Judge.Delhi on 30 March, 1991 whereby the petitioner/defendant's (termed defendant hereafter) application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Code, seeking leave to defend Suit No. 230 of 1988 has been rejected. (2) The respondent/plaintiff (formed plaintiff hereafter) instituted a suit against the defendant under the summary procedure prescribed by Order 37 of the Code. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant being bound by the terms of agreement, allegedly executed by it with the plaintiff, pursuant to the acceptance of plaintiff's quotation for furnishing of defendant's branch at Bhikaji Cama Place, vide Assistant General Manager (B & C's) letter dated 17 October 1984, had failed to make payment of the 5th and final bill in the sum of Rs. 73,779.12P. It was claimed that the said final bill was scrutinised and ...