Delhi Court October 1993 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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Ruby Advertisers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT304TriDel
1. As all the above misc. applications involve a common issue, they are heard together and disposed of by this common miscellaneous order.2. C/Misc/708/91 and C/Misc./512/92-B2 in C/1497/82-B2. - The applicants (M/s. Ruby Advertisers) herein had imported a consignment of industrial laundry machines vide bill of entry dated 24-7-1980 and sought classification under Heading 84.40(1) of the First Schedule to the CTA, 1975 attracting 40% duty, as the machines were neither domestic washing machines nor laundry and dry-cleaning machines. The importers sought classification under TI 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of countervailing duty.The Customs authorities assessed the goods under Heading 84.40(2) at 60% under TI 33C CET as domestic electrical appliances. The applicants deposited the amount of duty under protest, and subsequently applied for refund of excess duty charged which claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Secti...
Tube Fabrico (i.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR1035(Delhi)
1. This order will dispose of the applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 to 1978-79. 2. The assessed is a firm which was carrying on business in the purchase and sale of steel tubes. On April 7, 1980, there was a search under section 132(1) of the Act at the business and residential premises of the assessed-firm and its partners. One of the items which got known as result of the search was that in the financial year 1977-78 relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessed-firm had sold steel tubes worth Rs. 2,82,000 to one Messrs. B. R. Industries, which was the personal business of one Mr. B. R. Gupta, who was the partner of the assessed-firm. 3. This information was available from the books of Messrs. B. R. Industries when the premises of Mr. B. R. Gupta were searched and the corresponding entry was not available from the books of the assessed-firm because, according to the assessed, the books had been taken away...
Naresh Chand JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC236Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an application for stay of recovery filed with reference to the order of the Collector dated 29-5-1991. The learned Advocate stated that this case involves seizure of gold, foreign currency and Indian currency from a building in which he was also living. It was his submission that the gold and foreign currency were recovered from an Almirah in a room in the Ground floor. This room he had given on rent to a tenant and therefore, it was not in his control or possession or use. He himself was living in a room on the First Floor and the Indian currency found therein belongs to him. It was his submission that the statement was extracted from him under duress and at the first opportunity, he showed injuries to the Hon'ble Magistrate who observed them and ordered medical examination. In the circumstances, the statement could not be relied upon. Furthermore, he did not get any opportunity to defend himself and the order was passed ex parte. In this connection, he drew our attention...
Hardit Singh Chadha Vs. Jagtar Singh Grover
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)501; AIR1994Delhi189; 52(1993)DLT120; 1994(28)DRJ17; ILR1994Delhi528; 1993RLR639
ORDER OF REMAND - Interpretation of-Supreme Court reminding the case for decision in the fight of a particular decision-Subordinate Court can look into the subsequent decisions also to ascertain the correct position of law.PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Delay in dispensing justice-Thc Court appreciated the poem-an extract there from:-I'm now old and snuffed out, my son- I'm lost somewhere in thesecatacombs. So enter ye from the eastern gate- and I already seeyour son, and his and his - all queued up brandishing the samepetition for a speedy redress.'1. Shakespeare lamented that being involved in a law suit is like being ground to bits in a slow mill; it is being roasted at a slow fire; it is being stung to death by single bees; it is being drowned by drops; it is going mad by grains. I have every reason to believe that even now in these dying days of the 20th century the feeling can be no different.2. The story of this long drawn legal battle revolves around F-33, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and...
Surinder Kumar Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)405; 1994(1)ARBLR45(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT380
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act for issue of a direction to the petitioner to file the Award and that the same be made a rule of the Court.(2) The Award was filed before this Court on 30/01/1991as is manifest from the order sheet of the said date.(3) The petitioner did not file any objections against the Award but the respondent on the other hand. chose to file objections through their interim application bearing I A. No. 10558/92. The petitioner filed a replythereto.(4) Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. EX. Joseph, has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. However,he did not press the same during the course of his arguments. In view of the above I need not dilate on this point any further.(5) Learned Counsel for the Respondent has next contended that the Arbitrator has miss conducted himself and the proceedings and d...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Amba Ceramic Decal Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)141; 52(1993)DLT409
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23.53,762.00together with pendente lite and future interest @ 13.5% p.a. on Rs.10,15,247.00 and @ 15.5% on Rs. 10,69,160.65p and @ 16.5% p.a. onRs. 2,69,354.35p from the date of suit till realisation of the amount.(2) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff is a banking company constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Calcutta and one of its Branch Offices at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi, Shri I.M.Mishra being the Principal Officer of the plaintiff Bank is duly authorised to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute and prosecute the present suit.(3) As per averments made in the plaint, at the request of defendantNo. 1 which is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and in consideration of defendants No. 2 to 5 and Shri T.R. Iyengar (since dead) agreeing to stand guarantee in their personalcapaci...
Central Bank of India Vs. Rakash Chemical Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT393
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,60,303.90 with costs and future interest @ 16.5% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of its realisation.(2) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff is a Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings) Act, 1970, having its Central Office at Chander Mukhi Nariman Point, Bombay and a Branch amongst others at Naya Bazar,Delhi-110006. Shri Chandra Dev Kashyap is the Assistant Regional Manager and Genera Attorney (North) of the Plaintiff Bank. He is duly authorised to sign and verify the present plaint and to institute the present suit. In this regard he holds the power of attorney from the Plaintiff Bank.(3) As per averments made in the plaint, the defendant No. 2 who is the proprietor of defendant No. 1 opened a Current A/c. bearing No. 3380with the Plaintiff Bank in the name of defendant No. 1. At the request ofthe defendants 1 a...
The National Iron Foundry and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)197; 1994(28)DRJ201
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The first petitioner, a partnership firm of petitioners 2 and 3, seeks reliefs as under :- 'A)That this Hon'bel.- Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to release the credit facilities to the petitioners in terms of the sanction to the tune of Rs.31.58 lakhs and implement the nursing programme/scheme with respect to the unit of the petitioners. b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the conditions imposed by the petitioners as enumerated by respondent No.2 in letter dated 24th July 1990 or any other communication; c) Pass appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents not to recall and/or enforce the recovery of any amount that may be found payable by the petitioner with respect to the credit facilities which were being enjoyed and/or...
Sushil Kanta Chakravarty Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT91
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Shri Samarjit Chakravarty (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2) filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC against Shri Sushil Kanta Chakravarty (the petitioner herein) and Shri J.K. Sood, Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Janpath Branch,New Delhi on the allegations that the complainant, Shri Samarjit Chakravarty, Smt. Arati Chakravarty, wife of Shri Sunil Kanta Chakravarty and Shri Sushil Kanta Chakravarty are partners of M/s-ESPI (New Delhi)Trading Company, having its registered office at Ii, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. The said firm was maintaining an account with Indian OverseasBank, Janpath, New Delhi, being current account No. 503, which was being operated either by the complainant, Shri Samarjit Chakravarty or by Shri Sushil Kanta Chakravarty, the petitioner herein. It is further alleged that a portion of the premises of the said firm was on rent with CanaraBank. I...
D.C.M. Limited and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)174; 1993(27)DRJ453; 1994LabIC1667
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) 'IN civil jurisprudence it too often happens that there is so much law that there is no room for justice; and that the claimant expires of wrong in the midst of right, as mariners die of thirst in the midst of water'(2) Company must be wondering if this could be ever true. But this Court clothed with power to issue high prerogative writs, directions and orders and also exercising superintendence over all courts and tribunals will not allow things to come to such a pass where people lose faith in the judicial process.(3) C.M. 5695/93 has been filed by 12 workers' unions against the two respondents, namely, the D.C.M. Limited, the company, and the General Manager, D.C.M. Limited, seeking the following prayers:- (A)Direction to the petitioner company to release cheques of additional compensation to the workmen who are not in occupation of the quarters and who have not received the same till date. (B)To restrain the company from recovering from the workmen the additiona...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »