Delhi Court November 1994 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.
Sunny Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)LC703Tri(Delhi)
1. The only issue involved in the instant case is whether "Ad-vitamin Massage Oil Forte" manufactured by the appellants is classifiable under sub-heading 3003.19 of GET, 1985 as claimed by the appellants or under sub-heading 3304.00 as held by the authorities below.2. The facts leading to the said controversy lie in a very narrow compass that is to say the appellants M/s. Sunny Industries (P) Ltd. files their classification list No. 2/86, dated 3-3-1986 claiming classification of their said product, namely, Ad-vitamin Massage Oil Forte under sub-heading 3003.19 of GET, 1985 as patent or proprietary medicine which was modified during approval by the Assistant Collector to sub-heading 3304.00 as preparation of skin on the ground that use of medicinal ingredients in the subject goods does not take it away from the purview of the above Tariff Heading.3. The said question of classification of the subject product, namely, Ad-vitamin Massage Oil Forte stands already decided by this Tribunal ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Louis Shoppe
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)LC453Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi has filed the above captioned appeals being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Briefly the facts in both the above captioned appeals are that the appellants are manufacturers of wooden furniture and had filed classification lists and had claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 76/86 dated 10th February, 1986 for wooden decorative chairs and sofas, cupboards, cabinets, stands and counters having at times also inlay work on the ground that these were handicrafts since they were made from skilful use of hand by their craftsmen and had carving with Indian classical patterns and motives and at times having inlay work. Show cause notices were issued to the parties raising their liability of duty at the rate of 25%. The assessee had contended before the Assistant Collector that they bought the wood from the market. The same was cut to the required sizes from the saw mill. The...
Dilip Kumar Kali Charan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)52ITD310(Delhi)
1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) for assessment year 1982-83 whereby the order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 185(1)(b) whereby refusal of registration was confirmed, has been challenged by the assessee.2. Shri C.S. Aggarwal who appeared on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee's claim for registration was refused on the ground that there was no genuine firm in existence for the various reasons as discussed in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) in the case of the assessee for the aforesaid assessment year. According to the Assessing Officer, it was the assessee who carried on wholesale business in sarees, the income of which was diverted to the trust M/s.K.C. Dilip Kumar Pvt. Family Specific Trust. The learned CIT (Appeals) on the other hand was of the view that the profits earned were not distributed in accordance with the constitution so specified in the deed of partnership. This was for the reason that the in...
Hanumanji Charitable Trust Vs. A.D.i. (Exemption) Trust
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)52ITD183(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the DC (Appeals) whereby he has confirmed a penalty of Rs. 13,620 imposed on the assessee by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(a).2. The assessee in this case has been assessed in the status of an AOP on an income of Rs. 41,320 as against return filed on 4th January, 1988 declaring a deficit of Rs. 700 plus agricultural income of Rs. 3,056.It would also be necessary to mention that the assessee at the first instance did not file a return of income, but only did so after a notice under Section 148 had been issued on 18-11 -1987 and served on the assessee on 3-12-1987. The further relevant facts of the case are that up to the assessment year 1984-85 the assessee had been maintaining its books of account on the mercantile basis, but during the assessment year under consideration had changed the method from mercantile to cash and filed the return on the changed basis. It is also an accepted fact that in the course of the ass...
M/S. Babu Ram Gupta Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)539; AIR1995Delhi223; 1995(2)ARBLR543(Delhi); 58(1995)DLT659
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. The petitioner, a contractor, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking a restraint on the respondent Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), a Government company, from awarding the contract for construction of telephone exchange building at Rohini to any other person except the petitioner who claims to be the lowest tenderer.2. MTNL floated a tender for construction of its telephone exchange building in February 1993. Various parties responded to the tender notice. It is stated that the petitioner was the lowest tenderer and the second and third lowest tenderers were M/s. Rathan Construction, a private firm, andNational Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC), another Government Company. It is stated that M/s. Ralhan Construction thereafter withdrew and the contest was between the petitioner and the NBCC. It is stated that the petitioner's tender was lower by Rs. 11 lakhs than that tendered by the NBCC. The petitioner was first...
Kishan Lal and Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2161
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. These two appeals are preferred by the original accused No. 1 Kishan Lal, S/o Cheddi Lal and accused No. 2 Ashok Kumar @ Kale in Session's case No. 53/85. Both the appellants stand convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution could be stated as under : Deceased Amir Chand was having two shops in the market situated at C-27, Jahangir Puri. One of his shops was of hardwares and other was of paints. The present appellants were also working in the same market in the meat shop of one Shyam. 3. On 30-10-1984 at about 7.30 p.m. deceased Amir Chand was talking with one Joginder Singh under an electric pole situated at 5-7 feet away from his shop. When they were so talking the present appellants came there and questioned Amir Chand as to why the shop keepers were ta...
Lok Nath Grover and Sons Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT387
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The petitioner and the respondent No. I entered into an agreement in respect of construction of Government Higher Secondary School at Kalkaji, New Delhi. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause which provided that in case the amount in dispute is more than Rs. 50,000.00 , the Arbitrator would give reasoned award. Disputes arose between the partics. They were referred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 2. Since the amount in dispute was more than Rs. 50,000.00 , thereforee, as per the term of the agreement, the Arbitrator was required to give a reasoned award. The Arbitrator has given reasoned award. The impugned award was made and published on 17th September, 1983. The said award was filed in the Court. Notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties. Objections to the said award have been filed by the petitioner only. The petitioner has partially challenged the award and that is regarding claims Nos. 3, 5, 22 and 23.(2) The main thrust of M...
P.K. Ruia Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ12
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) P.K. Ruia has been arrested by the C.B.I, in four cases pertaining to First Information Reports No. RC/12/EOW/86, RC/13/EOW/86, RC/14/E/86 and RC/15/EOW/86. He is to be produced before a Calcutta Court. He prays that he should be enlarged on bail or at least on interim bail so as to enable him to appear before the court concerned in Calcutta. All those cases are under sections 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. (2) It appears from the First Information Report dated December 16, 1986 that during the period January, 1985 to September, 1985 the petitioner entered into a conspiracy with one Mr.Charls Solomon, the then manager of the Tamilnad Merchantile Bank Ltd. to commit fraud and cheat the Bank and in pursuance of that 94 public limited companies were floated and the capital was subscribed in questionable manner. All those companies had the petitioner as its Chartered...
Munni Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: 56(1994)DLT648
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Mr. S. L. Khanna, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi dated 5th February, 1991 arising cut of a Sessions case No. 36188. The basic facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under: (2) The accused appellant was charged with an offence punishable under Section 21 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 for having been found in possession of 150 grams of Heroin. (3) On 23rd December. 1986 the Sub Inspector Surinder Singh of Crime Branch,. Prosecution Witness No. 7 received a secret information in his office that three persons would come on a scooter near Shivaji Restaurant (Bhagat Singh Market) carrying Heroin and they would supply the Heroin to their known parties. Inspector Surinder Singh reduced the information into writing and. sent a copy of the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned. (4) Inspector Surinder Singh constituted a raiding party consisting...
P.K. JaIn Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT109; 1995(32)DRJ31; (1995)110PLR11
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) This petition was filed by Mr. P.K. Jain, while he was District Judge of Delhi, for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him, from the respondents. (3) The petitioner, while he was District Judge, Delhi, had undergone Artery Graft Surgery at the Escorts Foundation, at Okhia, New Delhi, and wanted to be reimbursed for whole of the expenses connected therewith. As the expenses incurred were not reimbursed this petition was filed. (4) For the purpose of dealing with matters that need to be considered and adjudicated upon in this petition, it is necessary to keep in mind certain provisions of the Constitution of India, certain provisions of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, and some provisions of the All India Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1954, (5) Article 233 of the Constitution concerns appointment of District Judge, and reads as under:- 233.Appointment of district judges.- (1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »