Delhi Court February 1994 Judgments

Swami Dhirendra Brahamchari Vs. Shailendar Bhushan and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995CriLJ1810; 53(1994)DLT696; 1994(28)DRJ362

ORDER1. Vishwayatan Yogashram (herein referred as Yogashram) is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860 with is registered office at Ashoka Road, New delhi. The petitioner is its Managing Trustee. On August 18, 1989 an advertisement was inserted by the Yogashram in the Hindustan Times inviting application both from male and female candidates for admission to its one year Yoga training course which was to commence from September 15, 1989 a Vishwayatan Yogashram, Katra Vaishnavi Devi, J & K. Since the said advertisement is at the center storm of the whole matter, let me reproduce the same. It runs as under : 'Applications from Male and Female candidates are invited for admission to One Year Yoga Training Course commencing from 18th Sept. 1989 at Vishwayatan Yogashram, Katra Vaishnavi Devi (J & K). The maximum number of candidates to be enrolled in this course will be 100. 15% seats are reserved for Schedule Caste and 7-1/2% for Schedule Tribe candidates. Age is...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ravindra Tubes Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)758; (1994)118CTR(Del)22; 1994(28)DRJ475; [1994]206ITR876(Delhi); 1994RLR155

D.P. Wadhwa, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi, has referred to this court the following two questions for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy as received by the assessed-company under '10 per cent. Central Outright Grant of Subsidy Scheme, 1971' was not to be reduced from the cost of the assets owned by the assessed-company under section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in adjudicating upon the nature of the subsidy without obtaining from the assessed the relevant documents constituting the basis of the subsidy ?' 2. For the purpose of answering these questions it may be necessary to refer to some relevant facts. 3. The assessment years involved are 1977-78 and 1978-79, with respective accounting years ending on December 31, 1976, and December 31, 1977. The assessed-company se...

Vinod Kumar Nagrath Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant Shri Vinod Kumar Nagrath had purchased a Swraj Mazda Truck No. DBI-6438 in the year 1987 which was financed by the Delhi Financial Corporation. The truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- under a Comprehensive Insurance Policy which was valid for 1991-92. 2. The said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on G.T. Road on 18.12.91 when the complainant was driving the vehicle from Jagdishpur towards Delhi in Distt. Bulandshahar. Extensive damage was caused to the vehicle and the complainant was also injured and remained confined to bed from 18.12.91 to 24.6.92. Immediately after the accident an FIR was lodged with the Police Station Sikandrabad on 19.12.91. Complainant further informed the respondent Co. Branch Office in Bulandshahar on 24-12-91. It has been stated that on receipt of this information, the respondent-Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor M/s. ...

Syntex Processors Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT386TriDel

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh confiscating certain quantities of processed man-made fabrics seized in transit and from certain other premises, levying duty on the processed man-made fabrics alleged to have been removed clandestinely by M/s. Syntex Processors and imposing penalties on all the appellants herein.2. The facts of the case are as follows : M/s. Syntex Processors is a Partnership firm engaged in the processing of man-made fabrics on job work basis in their Unit at Amristar. On 8-5-1987 officers of the Central Excise Department intercepted a Matador van found to be carrying 160 pieces of processed man-made fabrics and enquiry from the driver and other occupants who were the employees of Syntex Processors revealed that the Malador had left the factory premises of Syntex Processors the same morning after loading the fabrics which were seized in the absence of any accompanying gate passes. The Matador was al...

Y.P. Associates Vs. Pawar Textiles (Pvt) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)765; 53(1994)DLT653; 1994(28)DRJ538

S.C. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this application for amendment of the cause title of the winding up petition in brief are as under. (2) M/S Y.P. Associates, through its sole proprietor, Mr. Y.P.Garg, filed a petition under Section 433 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up the respondent company, M/s Pawar Textiles (Pvt) Ltd being Company Petition No. 189 of 1986. In the said company petition,the respondent company, M/s Pawar Textiles (Pvt) Ltd, filed an application under Order 30, Rule 10 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code and Rule 9 of Company Court Rules being C.A. No. 409 of 1992 for dismissing/rejecting the winding up petition and one of the grounds taken was that Y.P. Associates, who has filed this winding up petition has been shown as a firm, as a sole proprietorship, and the petition in this form is not maintainable. Sabharwal, J, the then Company Judge, vide his Order dated 12.10.1992 dismissed that application filed by the respondent herei...

Charan Singh Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration (State) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)565; 53(1994)DLT413; 1994(28)DRJ369

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the charge framed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against him under section 506 Ii of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this petition. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner made three submissions while seeking the quashing of the charge. His first contention was that the petitioner could not be present at the place of occurrence at the given time as at that time he was attending his place of work. In support my attention was drawn to a certificate issued by his School authorities where he is employed as teacher. His second contention was that no useful purpose would be served by making a criminal case go on and that in fact it would only embitter the relations further. Lastly it was argued that even otherwise on the basis of the material on record the charge ought not to have been framed. (3) The petitioner is being prosecuted, as would be borne out from what has already been recorded above, under section 506 of the Indian Pena...

Sudhir Chadha Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)585; 53(1994)DLT479; 1994(28)DRJ420

Usha Mehra, J. (1) By this writ petition Sh. Sudhir Chadha has sought the quashing of the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called. the Act) issued vide notification No.F.9(20)/85-L&B;, dated 27.5.85, pertaining to Village Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. (2) Petitioner possesses land bearing Khasra No.860-861, measuring 10 Bighas and 14 bids was in Village Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and published in the Delhi Gazette of 25.11.80. Petitioner did not file any objection under Section 5A of the Act, nor filed writ petition challenging the said notification. Subsequent thereto the respondent made a declaration vide notification dated 27.5.85. This declaration was made after a lapse of more than 3 years from the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been assailed primarily on the ground that in the case of BR.Gupta V. Union of India...

Air Control and Chemical Engg. Co. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC130Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Air Control & Chemical Engineering Company Limited, have filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 16/Collector/1989, dated the 17th Oct., 1989, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of compressors, falling under Item No. 29A(3) of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the old Tariff), and under Heading No. 8414.10 of the new Tariff, with effect from 1-3-1986. On investigation, scrutiny of documents recovered from their premises, and the information gathered from the officials of the appellant's company, it was revealed that they were undervaluing the dutiable compressors, with an intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty, and at the same time were overvaluing the non-dutiable parts which were essential for the working of the compressors, and which were compulsorily supplied to the customers. In this process, while they were recovering their differential...

income-tax Officer Vs. Food Specialities Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)49ITD21(Delhi)

1. These are cross appeals, preferred by both the parties, being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on various grounds. These came up for hearing before the Special Bench constituted by the President along with the appeal of Indian Communication Network (P.) Ltd. in the circumstances narrated in the order of the Tribunal in the latter appeal. Taking up for consideration the assessee's appeal, the first ground raised reads as follows : "1. Your appellant submits that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX erred in law in not allowing excise duty as claimed by your appellant in the sum of Rs. 81,60,723 under the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 2. The assessee in this case is a public limited company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of various kinds of food products, like NESCAFE" instant coffee, "LACTOGEN" baby food, "MAGGI" noodles, "CERELAC" baby cereal, etc.3...

M/S. Rish Prabhat Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1995Delhi9

ORDER1. This is an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act whereby the respondents have sought condensation of delay in filing objections to the award of the sole arbitrator, Shri R. C. Malhotra dated 29-9-1992. The objection petition is registered as I.A. No. 7764/93.2. I have heard both the parties and have also been taken through the record of this case by both the counsel. In application, it isalleged that the respondents were served with the notice of the filing of the award on 27th March, 1993. The objections to the award were filed on 25th August, 1993 i.e. about four months of the service of notice. The applicant-objector has set out in para 2 of the application various dales when the file of this case was traveling from one desk to the other. Such consideration of file appears to have been taken up soon after the award even before the service of notice, which means that respondents has had four months time to consider their stand on the award. Finally the file was brought...