Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 6 of about 144 results (0.023 seconds)Arun Khosia Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ94
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The petitioner had entered into a contract for construction of Filtration Plant for Additional Huts at Hissar Cantt. The site of the work is situated within the State of Haryana. It is a defense work to be carried out under the Engineer in Chief Army Headquarters and Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Service,-Chandigarh. Respondent No. 4 is seized of the arbitration proceedings at Lucknow. The petitioner seeks revocation of the authority of the arbitrator and his removal followed by appointment of another arbitrator. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that because the appointing authority of the arbitrator is respondent No.2 situated at New Delhi and further because the contract was entered into at Delhi and letter of revocation arid the contract was also delivered to the petitioner at New Delhi, the Court at Delhi has the jurisdiction to try the petition.(2) In Kamal Pushup Enterprises, : 56(1994)DLT259 this Court has clearly taken the view foll...
Tag this Judgment!Continental Foundation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT355TriDel
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is the classification of the goods imported by the appellant company described as "Aliva-Medio dry spraying machine". The appellant had claimed classification of these goods under Heading 8474.89 of Customs Tariff with the benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1st March, 1987. The Assistant Collector of Customs at New Delhi did not accept the appellant's contention and held that the goods were rightly classifiable under Heading 8479.10 of the Tariff. In coming to his conclusion he considered, but did not accept the importer's alternative claim for classification under Heading 8424.89. Collector of Customs (Appeals) confirmed classification under Heading 8479.10.2. Shri N. Singh, Consultant, appearing for the importer, explained that the classification under Heading 8474.89 was made by typographical error; the importer in fact had wished to claim classification of goods under Heading 8474.31 as concrete mixture. According to him, the tec...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Radiant Electronics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT102TriDel
1. These are 9 appeals filed by the Department involving common issues.Therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri G.K. Mundhra, learned Representative, appearing for the party submitted that whether installation and commissioning charges are to be included in the assessable value of Electronics Automatic Private Branch Exchange (EPABX) manufactured by the party is an issue to be considered in Appeal Nos. E/5714 and 5715/92A and in the remaining appeals in addition to the above issue, whether cost of cable and cabling charges is to be included in the assessable value, is also to be considered.3. M/s. Radiant Electronics Ltd., Bhubaneshwar submitted a few price lists in part II declaring the prices of Electronics Automatic Private Branch Exchange (EPABX) manufactured by them for approval. Assistant Collector while finalising the approval of the price lists held that installation and charging of telephones plus cabling charges were includi...
Tag this Judgment!Jainsons Clothing Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC663Tri(Delhi)
1. The matters were called. Shri G.L. Rawal, the learned advocate with Shri A. Samad, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri V.C. Bhartiya, the learned JDR, for the respondent. Shri Rawal drew the attention of the Bench to the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court judgments in the appellants' own case viz. 566/84, dt. 22-6-1987 of M/s. Jainsons Clothing Corporation; 401/84, dated 2-6-1987 of M/s. Jain Exports (P) Ltd. and 398/84, dated 22-6-1987 of M/s. Biswanath Traders & Investment (P) Ltd. By these orders the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been allowed. Shri Rawal stated that as per his information, the Revenue being not satisfied with the order passed by the Hon'ble Judge has filed an appeal before the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. Shri Rawal further stated that he had appeared once in this matter before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and to his information the appeal is still pending. He left it to the discretion of the Bench fo...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Trade Links Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)54ITD108(Delhi)
1 to 27. These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues.28. The next contention pertains to, disallowance of Rs. 60,984 made on account of guest house expenses. While the Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid expenses being covered under Section 37(5) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) after following the order of the ITAT Delhi Bench 'C' in the case of Purolalers India Ltd. v. IAC [1991 ] 34 ITD 287, deleted the addition. This was vehemently contested by the learned DR.It was submitted that the provisions of Section 37(4) read with Sub-clause (5) of Section 37 of the Act were not correctly appreciated by the learned CIT(A). The definition of 'guest house' as given in Sub-section (5) of Section 37 of the Act, leaves no scope for allowance of any expenditure incurred on maintenance of guest house. Specifically so, in respect of rent and depreciation which have been mentioned therein. The decision of CIT v. Chase Bright Stee lLtd. (No. 1) [ 1989] 177 ITR 124 as well ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)96; 57(1995)DLT196
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Ram Kishore, appellant, has been convicted of an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code of having caused the death of his own wife intentionally or knowingly during the intervening night of 17thand 18/04/1986 at. House No. 284 Lane No. 1, Village Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide judgment dated 31/07/1989 by an Additional Sessions Judge and vide a separate order of the even date, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of three months more. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing the present appeal.(2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that PW.1 Murti Devi, resident of HouseNo. 284 Lane No. 1, Village Shalimar Bagh, Delhi had one daughter namelyVidyawati, since deceased. Vidyawati was earlier twice married to different persons but had apparently separated from those husbands without their being any legal divorce pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Chand JaIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)217; 1995(32)DRJ474
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) Sunil Chand Jain s/o Padam Singh Jain resident of House No.638, Gali Ishwari Prasad, Bara Hindu Rao was tried by an Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi in Session's case number 3/93 and is found guilty of the offences punishable under 302, 307 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is convicted under Section 302 and is sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000.00 and in default to suffer Ri for 10 years. He is convicted under Section 307 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He is further convicted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer Rl for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000.00 . The learned Additional Sessions Judge has made a reference to this court to confirm the said death sentence whereas the accused Sunil Chand Jain has preferred Criminal Appeal 197/94 against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him. (2) First informant Public Witness .I Rajinder Kumar son of Vakil Chand Jain is resident ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/S. Sudhir Brothers
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT474; 1995(32)DRJ366
M. J. Rao, C.J.Admitted. 1. So far as the claim relating to the levy of Rs. 5,69,473/- towards compensation against the contractor is concerned, the contention of the appellant is that the Arbitrator could not have done into the said question on merits as it was an excluded item on which the decision of the Engineer is final and, thereforee, that part of the award has to be set aside. The item relates to recovery of compensation from the contractor on account of delay. 2. In this case the point arises in a novel fashion. The concerned engineer authorised to determine the question whether the contractor was liable to pay compensation had, in fact, decided that such compensation was payable by the contractor. That was a decision of the officer in favor of the D.D.A. This appears to be borne out by the decision contained in the officer's letter dated 20.5.1985 (referred to under Counter Claim No. 1 of the appellant/D.D.A.). There was no need for D.D.A. to ask the Arbitrator to include it ...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Merachant Vs. the State (C.B.i.)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2866; 1995(1)Crimes453; 1995(32)DRJ59
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dated 12th October, 1993. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and it has been observed that there is no force in the contention that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. It is further observed that all offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and thus the Court of Magistrate was competent to try the case. It is further mentioned in the order that the proceedings in this case had not become void at any stage and no fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated at any stage. It is also mentioned that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. 2. Brief facts necessary to decide this petition are recapitulated. The petitioner along with...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Khanna and ors. Vs. International Airports Authority of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)85; 1995(1)ARBLR148(Delhi); 57(1995)DLT191; 1995(32)DRJ163
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing the award dated 24th November, 1988 and proceedings before the Court. This Court issued notice to the respondent No. 2, Arbitrator directing him to file award and proceedings in Court. Notice of filing the award was given to both the parties and thereafter both the parties have filed their objections to the award. (2) The Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the arbitrator has misconducted in disallowing the claims of the petitioner? 2. Whether the Award in so far as it disallows the claims of the petitioner, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record? 3. Relief.(3) The parties were directed to file affidavits by way of evidence within four weeks. The requisite affidavits had been filed and pleadings in the suit are complete, and now the matter had been placed for final disposal in the category of 'Short Cause'. (4) Brief facts relevant to dis...
Tag this Judgment!