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.
Naraini Devi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT506; I(1992)DMC413; 1992(22)DRJ372
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) Two separate appeals have been filed by Naraini Devi and Satish Kumar against a common Judgment of Shri S.L. Bhayana, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 27th July, 1991. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted both the accused under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code. Under Sec.304-B, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and both the petitioners were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month each. Both the sentences were however ordered to run concurrently. (2) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred these two appeals before this court. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals ar...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT522; 1992(23)DRJ41
(1) Whether a rebate of I % was due to the assessed or not is not easy to find from the bare reading of the said section. The issue involved is not free from doubt. under these circumstances, it is not possible for us to accept that an application under section 154 could be filed. Under Section 154 if a mistake is committed then that error can be rectified. By an involved process of reasoning a section cannot be interpreted and relief granted by invoking jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act. If has been held by the Supreme Court in T.S. Balram V. Valcart Brothers 82 Itr 50 that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can-be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record.(2) In the present case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner clearly held that this is not a case where the provisions o...
Thio Pharma Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT395TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi allowed the Revenue's appeal before him and upheld their contention that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86 as the asses-sees, manufacturers of medicines, were affixing the trade name/brand name "Synthico" belonging to the company M/s. Synthiko Formulations. M/s. Synthiko Formulations were exclusively purchasing the medicines manufactured by the assessee and were marketing the same.However, they were not manufacturers of any goods or holding any L-4 licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The contention of the appellants has been that they were manufacturers of Brosmin tablets alongwith other medicines, which is their own product with their brand name. They have engaged the services of a marketing firm M/s. Synthiko Formulations, Bombay. As they were their sole selling and marketing agent and for easy identification, their company's name 'Synthico' was printed on the labels. ...
Jaramsons Plastic Industry Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT558TriDel
1.1 The appellants herein filed a bill of entry on 6-6-1990 for clearance of the goods declared as synthetic liquid. The import documents indicated the goods as - The goods were claimed for clearance under OGL under Appendix 6 Item No. 1 of the ITC Policy 1988-91 and the appellants submitted a letter of authority from M/s. Indoplast, Vallabh Vidyanagar and produced their SSI Registration Certificate for the processing activities of various items including "flavours and Fragrances, perfumery intermediates".2. Several allegations have been made against the appellants herein. We shall deal with each of the allegations made and upheld against the appellants seriatim : 2.1 (1) Mis-declaration of description of goods for claiming import under OGL: Allegation is that two items namely, Hydroxy Dimethyl Octanal and Dimethyl Octadienol as declared in the import documents were actually Hydroxy Citronellal and Geraniol respectively. It was alleged that the appellants did not declare the synonyms ...
Mala Bhaktani Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT563TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Addl. Collector absolutely confiscating the goods valued at Rs. 46,200/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.2. The appellant is the daughter of Smt. Nirmala Raheja. Smt. Nirmala Raheja arrived from Singapore via Madras at Bombay on 4-8-1983. When the appellant tried to clear the baggage, she was intercepted by the customs officers and detained. By the time, the appellant cleared the baggage, the mother Smt. Nirmala Raheja already left the airport with her baggage. Smt. Raheja was called back from the house and the statement of the appellant as well as Mrs. Raheja was recorded. Both the appellant and Mrs. Raheja was detained and produced before the Magistrate who released on bail. On the basis of the statements, the Addl. Collector absolutely confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal the goods were sold for Rs. 36,955.90. Smt. Raheja died and therefore, her appeal abated...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.K. Kapur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT636; 1992(23)DRJ40; [1992]196ITR714(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax challenging the order made on August 26, 1972, by the learned Subordinate Judge rejecting the claim of the petitioner for production of records pertaining to the years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The claim of privilege of the Department pertaining to other years was upheld by the impugned order and that part of the order is not under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a Full Bench decision of this court dated December 14, 1973, on reference made in Suit No. 64 of 1969 in Trilok Chand Jain v. Dagi Ram Pindi Lall : [1974]95ITR34(Delhi) , contends that the claim of privilege of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Income-tax, pertaining to the years 1962-63 and 1963-64, was liable to be allowed by the learned trial court. The Full Bench, while considering the position of law prior to 1964, considered the question relating to t...
Sharda Singh Vs. Ithad Motor Transport Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR89]; (1992)IILLJ865Del
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order of the Labour Court dated November 10, 1973 made in L.C.A. No. 251 of 1973 following the decision of a Single Bench of this Court the Labour Court by the impugned order held that the status of workman having been challenged the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The application was held to be not maintainable. The decision of the Single Bench of this Court was, however, overruled by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in C.W. 1278/71 Re : Yad Ram v. Bir Singh and another, decided on December 11, 1973 and it was held that a mere denial by the employer about the existence of the relationship of workman and employer will not oust the jurisdiction of the specific Labour Court. The Division Bench also held that if it is contended by the employer that during the period for which the claim is mad...
Rattan Chand JaIn Vs. Uberoi Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT432; 1992(22)DRJ535
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.(1) The Uberoi Limited, an enterprise of Uberoi family, had total share-holding of 5000 shares of RS.IOO.00 each and the shares were exclusively held by Uberoi group till March 1972. In March, 1972, Uberoi group sold 74 per cent of the shares equal to 3695 shares to Jaggi group, one per cent shares equal to 53 shares were kept in the miscellaneous and Uberoi group retained 25 per cent shares equal to 1252 shares. In April 1979, the Uberoi group was bifurcated into two groups. It transferred 12 per cent shares equal to 600 shares to Taneja group, retaining the balance of 13 per cent shares to the remnant Uberoi group. (2) In May 1979 Jaggi group transferred 51 per cent shares equal to 2551 shares to Rattan Chand Jain for short 'Jain' and the Jaggi group was left with 23 per cent shares equal to 1144 shares. The Jaggi group then divided the shares between its two members: R.P.Jaggi group got 18 per cent shares equal to 900 shares and D.L.Jaggi group was left with 5...
Nangia Construction (India) Ltd. Vs. International Airport Authority o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT351; 1992(22)DRJ379; 1992RLR144
Usha Mehra, J.(1) M/S. Nangia Construction (India) Private Limited was awarded the contract for special repairs to Main Runway 10/28 and other operational pavement at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi with an estimated cost of Rs.2,87,71,916.96 The stipulated time for carrying out the work was twelve months. In the acceptance letter it was provided that the petitioner will be paid mobilisation advance against the bank guarantee of a Nationalised Bank. The formal agreement was executed between the parties on 11th July, 1990 and the work was to commence from 15th July, 1990. According to the petitioner, the work could not commence even up to 10th March, 1991 due to non availability of the run way. This fact was brought to the notice of the Executive Engineer by the petitioner vide his letter dated 24th September, 1990. The requisite connection for the installation of the Hot Mix Plant was also not made available by the respondent with the result the installation of the Hot M...
Sardara Singh Vs. Ithad Motor Transport Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT62
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 10/11/1973 made in L.C.A. No. 251 of 1973. Following the decision of a Single Bench of this Court the Labour Court by the impugned order held that status of workman having been challenged the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The application was held to be not maintainable.The decision of the Single Bench of this Court was, however, overruled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W. 1278/71 Re: Yed Ram v.BirSingh and Another, decided on 11/12/1973 and it was held that a mere denial by the employer about the existence of the relationship of workman and employer will not oust the jurisdiction of the specific Labour Court.The Division Bench also held that if it is contended by the employer that during the period for which the claim is made t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »