Delhi Court February 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.
S.N. Misra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT337; 1992(23)DRJ145
R.L. Gupta, D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.(1) Petitioner, a member of the Panchshila Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. respondent No.4 has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ. Order or direction for quashing the voters list/list of members dated 13.4.1990 issued by the aforesaid Society to the Registrar of Cooperative Society, respondent No.3 and the Care Taker, respondent No.5 to finalize the voters list in accordance with Rule 37 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rule 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) after inviting objections from the Society and considering the same and for removing the dis-qualified members from the rolls and allow only the first named members in case of joint members to cast vote, further ordering Mr. George P.Peter, Sub Inspector of Co-operative Societies-cum-Election Officer, respondent No.6 or any other officer appointed by the Registrar to .hold elections of the Managing Committee in accordance with the ...
Pujara Packaging Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC370
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported a consignment of second hand printing machines. In the bill of entry the goods imported in 6 cases were declared to contain "One Guilltone 45" Polar 115 Electromat and one Two Colour 46 x 64 cm complete offset press standard equipment" and clearance was claimed under OGL-Appendix 10(3) read with Appendix 2(12)(18) and of AM-83 Import Policy. On examination of the goods in the docks it was found that in addition to the declared goods one additional Two Colour Offset Printing Machine Model Solna 225 had been imported. In the Chartered Engineer's certificate produced by the importers (he imported paper cutting machine and the offset printing machine were shown to be of 1974 and 1975 make respectively and the residual life of the offset machine was indicated as 15 years. On the basis of the price of S.E.K. 210000 = Rs. 29,556 i...
Beta Naphthol (P) Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: (1992)(42)LC508Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of an order-in original No. 04/29/90 of Collector confirming a demand of Rs. 1,23,054/- and Rs. 14,56,112.45/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/-.2. The case of the appellants is that they manufacture Beta Naphthol falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 2907.10. The inputs which are consumed in the manufacture of Beta Naphthol are Naphthalene, caustic soda flakes, Caustic Soda Lye and sulphuric acid. Prior to 1.3.1986, the appellants were availing proforma credit under Section (sic) 56A of the Central Excise Rules. On 4/5th Nov. 1986, the appellants filed a declaration under Rule 56G declaring various inputs used in the manufacture of Beta Naphthol. They also wrote a covering letter dtd.5th Nov. 1986 requesting the Central Excise Authorities to permit them to avail the benefit of notification No. 432/86 dtd. 6.10.1986 in respect of Naphthalene and sought benefit under Rule 57A in respect of Caustic Soda and sulphuric acid used in manufacture of Beta Naph...
Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: (1992)(41)LC12Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute relates to the competency of the advocate engaged by a consultant to plead on behalf of the appellant without filing a Vakalatnama. The issue was raised as a preliminary objection by some of the Members of the Tribunal. Therefore, it was considered and both the parties were heard. 2A. Slid Sooji is a consultant and he is authorised to appear on behalf of the appellant by a power of attorney executed in his favour. Shri Sooji in his turn engaged Shri Dave to plead on behalf of the appellant and Shri Dave did not file any Vakalatnama. Since the objection raised by the Tribunal is that Shri Dave cannot appear without filing a Vakalatnama. Shri Dave supported his arguments by making a reference to Section 35Q, Order 3 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court Rules and the Advocates Act.3. Section 35Q provides for appearance by an authorised representative which reads as follows: 35Q-Any person who is entitled or required to appear before a Central Excise Off...
Apex Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PromaIn Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT456
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) By this petition under Section 391 and Section 394 of the Companies Act,, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). M/s.Apex Investments Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company)and M/s. Promain Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company)have jointly prayed for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation whereby the transferor company proposes to transfer its entire assets and liabilities to vest in the transferee company to achieve best results of investments and finance activities of both the companies.The transferor company is a private limited company duly registered and incorporated on 5th of May 1973 under the Act. The authorised capital of the company originally was Rs. 5 lacs divided into 5,000 equity shares ofRs. 100.00 each. The share capital was increased to Rs. 10 lacs vide resolution passed in the Extra-ordinary General Meeting on 26th of February 1974. Later,by another resolution passed in Extra-ordinary General Meeting he...
Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. Vs. International Airport Authority of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT515; 1994(74)ELT37(Del)
B.N. Kirpal. J, (1) The claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is for the refund of the excess amount of demurrage which it had paid to the respondents 1 and 2. The sum of refund so claimed comes to Rs. 3,26,645.00 . (2) The petitioner had imported multi-cable transit cable sealing system. According to the petitioner these goods were to be cleared under Tariff Item No. 85.47 on the payment of duty @ 135.75%. The Customs Department. however, with regard to the import of items made on 7th and 12th December, 1988 decided that the goods were to be cleared by paying duty @ 181.75% under Tariff Item No. 39. Provisional clearance was granted and on payment of demurrage goods were released to the petitioner. Subsequently the present writ petition was filed and the claim was that demurrage should not have been charged because detention certificate had been issued in the present case. (3) Before the filing of the writ petition the question as to whether the petitioner's import fell under ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: (1992)103CTR(Del)82; 47(1992)DLT623; [1992]195ITR290(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.(1) In these two references (wrongly numbered as three references) under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this Court:- 1.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the- case the assessed is entitled to a deduction of the amounts of freight advantage payable by it to Caco as accrued and ascertained liability in respect of the previous years in question .' 2.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessed is entitled to a deduction in respect of its liability for the payment of gratuity to its employees and if so what is the basis on which such deduction could be permitted.'(2) Since, common questions of law arising out of identical facts are involved in both the references, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. (3) During the relevant previous years, endin...
Paras Ram and anr. Vs. Makkay Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC220; 1993ACJ93; 47(1992)DLT177
D.K. Jam, J.(1) This appeal by the claimants under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the 'Act') is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal') dated 26 July19.88 in Suit No. 186/81.(2) On 30/07/1977 at about 2 P.M. Surinder Kumar, son of theappellants, aged about 13 years, along with one Ved Prakash, both on a cycle left from their residence at Prithviraj Road from the service road. They saw a truck bearing registration No. Dll 8003, emerging from Tughlak Road side on the Tughlak Lane, driven by respondent No. 1, at a high speed. The truck took a sharp turn on the right hand side towards service road and it dashed against the cycle. Surinder Kumar and Ved Prakash fell down from their cycle. Surinder Kumar died on the spot and Ved Prakash received injuries on his right' leg and other parts of his body. It is the case of the claimants that after the accident respondent No. 1 tried to run away from the spot but was app...
K.K. SarIn Vs. Pigott Champman and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi362; 46(1992)DLT352; 1992(22)DRJ471; 1992RLR139
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that K.K.Sarin, petitioner herein, alleging himself to be the owner landlord of the premises S-108, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi filed an eviction petition under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent 'Control Act, as amended against M.s. Pigolt Chapman & Co. through its partners, respondent herein.The grounds taken in the eviction petition are that the premises were let out for residence and that the same arc required by the petitioner for his residence and for the residence of his family members and servants dependent upon him for the purpose of residence. At the time of letting out the premises, the petitioner was in occupation of a government allotted accommodation being the Central Govt. employee. He was going to retire on 30th June, 1991 and he would have to vacate the allotted accommodation after his retirement and that he had no other residential accommodation at Delhi.(2) Since this petition was filed under Section 14C, summons ...
Parveen Agnihotri Vs. Anuradha Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT448
S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that on 14.1,1985, permission to create fixed term tenancy for a period of two years with respect to premises No.61-D. Block-H, Dda Flats, Saket, New Delhi under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was granted by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. The tenant Parveen Agnihotri, appellant herein, did not vacate the premises after the expiry of the fixed term tenancy and so the decree- holder respondent herein. filed an application seeking possession on 15.4.87. During the pendency of that application, the appellant filed objection dated 26.11.87 challenging the validity of the permission on various grounds. One of the objections taken by the appellant was that the premises in dispute is situated in village Sajdla Jat and the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable to the premises in that village and the permission granted by the Addl Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »