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.
Radhey Shyam Dalmia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT614; 1992(23)DRJ96; [1992]195ITR667(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1977-78, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest paid to the three minors who were admitted to the benefits of partnership in the firms, the Associated Sales Company and the Vikas Textile Agency was includible in the income of the assessed under section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that three minor children of the assessed, viz., Ramesh Kumar Dalmia, Harsh Kumar Dalmia and Swarna Lata Dalmia were admitted to the benefits of two partnership firms, viz., Vikas Textile Agency and Associated Sales Company. While the assessed was a partner in Vikas Textile Agency, in the other firm, he was not a partner. 3. These minors were not only paid the share of profits but they also received interest from the firm on the accumulated profits and it is this interest which was assessed in the hands of t...
Bnt Associates Ltd. and anr. Vs. G.C. Jerath and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT573; 1992(23)DRJ221; 1992RLR293
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3rd December, 1990 passed by Shri S.M. Chopra. Additional Rent Controller. Delhi whereby tenants have been refused to leave to defend and contest the application for eviction filed by the landlords on bonafide requirement. (2) In the petition filed by the respondents/landlords for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein- after referred to as the 'Act')' the tenant-petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 4.12.1989 under Section 25B(4), 25B of the Act stating various grounds to contest the application of eviction. One of the grounds taken in para 6 is that the petitioner No. 2 stated to be the daughter of petitioner No. 1 is not dependant upon the petitioner No. 1 for purposes of residence or otherwise. She has been residing at Lucknow along with her husband and family members since the date of her marriage. The husband of petitioner No. 2 is empl...
Swaraj Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)(42)LC496Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants arc engaged in the manufacture of various electronic goods including Audio Tape Recorders, Car Cassette Players and Combinations thereof with Radio. They are registered with the Directorate of Industries, NOIDA as a small scale unit for the manufacture of aforesaid items. They imported a consignment of 24,000 pieces Magnetic Heads from Hongkong and filed Bill of Entry No. 21512 dated 30.4.1986 claiming clearance of the goods under open general licence in terms of Appendix 6(1) of the Import Policy, 1985-88 as actual users. They also claimed the assessment of the goods at the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.232/83-Cus dated 18.8.1983 on the strength of the certificate dated 27.4.1984 issued by the Directorate of Industries. In the order dated 27.4.1987 passed by the Deputy Collector, the imported magnetic heads were held as not covered by the open general...
Padia Sales Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: (1993)LC674Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 2/91(A) dated 28-8-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Customs House, Calcutta.2. The appellants imported 81 cases of ball-bearings valued at Rs. 1,50,000/-(CIF) from Democratic People Republic of Korea. Acting on intelligence, Officers of Dock Intelligence Unit (Appraising) seized the subject consignment on 29-6-1989 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 with a reasonable belief that the goods were imported unauthorisedly, misdeclaring the value of the same. The party did not file any bill of entry or took any initiatives to clear the goods even after the seizure of the same. Show Cause Notice was issued to the Importer asking them to show cause as to why the above referred goods could not be confiscated under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why the penalty should not be imposed under Section 112. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that they could not file bill of...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT639TriDel
1. The learned JDR has not produced the Collector's authorisation/or the proceedings in which the authorisation was taken from the Collector for filing this appeal despite a number of opportunities i.e.31-12-1991 and 21-1-1992.2. Prima facie, the authorisation dated 30-3-1983 of Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta is not a proper authorisation - being of general nature. Following the ratio of Tribunal's judgments : The appeal is liable to be dismissed prima facie, as contended by the learned advocate for the respondents.3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case on the aforesaid preliminary point, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We order accordingly....
National Mineral Development Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT734TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta in Order No. Cal.Cus-401/91 dated 14-6-1991, in terms of which he confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs in rejecting the refund claim made by the appellants. The learned Consultant, Shri P.C. Chadha along with A. Girijasankar, Deputy Manager of the Appellant's Company, appeared for the appellants and contended that before the home-delivery was taken it was found that one of the package was in a damaged condition. Accordingly, a survey was held with respect to that package and in that survey it was found that one Quick Disconnect Socket was found missing. He also pointed out that the Customs Authorities were asked to make an endorsement in this behalf on the reverse of the bill of entry. But they did not do so. He also pointed out that a letter was written in this regard by the appellants dated 1-8-1990 bearing the number : Cal/HQMN/2702/126/9...
Santosha Nand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)Crimes1243; 1992RLR199
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition, are that Santosha Nand petitioner herein along with others are facing trial in the court of the Additional Session Judge (SJ) at New Delhi for offences u/S.120B, 302, 307, 324 and 326 Ipc and u/S.4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 allegedly for the murder of Shri L.N.Mishra, the then Railway Minister and two others. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 150 witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed by Shri B.L. Kalra, Special P.P. (2) On 25.4.1986 an application u/S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved before the Additional S.J. concerned by the counsel for the accused Santosha Nand for summoning of 13 witnesses as court witnesses. Out of these 13 witnesses two witnesses namely A.K. Mishra and A.K.Thakkar are the persons who earlier made confessional statements but later on they were got discharged. They have not been cited as prosecution witnesses in the challan. Names of r...
Singla Trading and Leasing Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Thr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT135
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the supplementary bill raised by the respondent on account of load violation charges as per the Tariff for the relevant period of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking ('DESU' for short). The respondent has been sued through the General Manager, DESU. The petitioner seeks to have this bill quashed and a further restraint on the respondent from disconnecting the power supply of the petitioner on account of non-payment of the impugned bill. The bill is for the amount of Rs. 5,41,368.05 and the petitioner was asked to make payment of this bill by 4 February, 1991 otherwise 3% surcharge of the amount of the bill was to be levied for each 30 days successive period or part thereof until the amount in full was paid by this date. (2) The petitioner filed this petition on 24 January, 1991. On the following day when the matter was listed before a Bench of this Court notice was issued to the res...
Kuldip Mehta Vs. Kapur and Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT528; 1992RLR196
S.C. Jain, J. (1) Shri Kuldip Mehta petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act with respect to premises No. M-140 Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, in April, 1987 (being E-132/87) on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. An application seeking leave to defend was filed by the respondents and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner with the consent of the Counsel for petitioner leave to contest was granted by the Addl. Rent Controller on 2710.1987. Since then the eviction petition is pending for disposal. (2) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has alleged he has no proper place to live and per force he has to reside along with his wife in a tent house on the terrace of his house and are at the mercy of the heat, the rain and the winter. The failure of the Addl. Rent Controller to piss orders for eviction and take subsequent circumstances into consideratio...
Sheila Devi and ors. Vs. Ram Kanwar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC706
P.N. Nag, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30th April 1986 passed by Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,14,000/- to the appellants. The amount was to be paid to the appellants as per the directions issued therein.2. Being aggrieved against this order dated 30th April 1986 the appellants have filed the present appeal and prayed for enhancement of compensation among with costs and interest.3. The appeal was placed before the Lok Adalat on 7th July 1991 and the parties voluntarily agreed to resolve the controversies before the Court amicably. They also agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Lok Adalat Settlement and re-affirm the settlement made therein before the Court. The case was settled on the terms and conditions that the petitioners press their claim only for the award of interest and parties agree that the interest at the rate of 10% per annum be awarded on the award amount of Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »