Delhi Court February 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 4 of about 140 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of C. Excise Vs. Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC160Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of weaving machines as well as parts and accessories of such machines. In the first instance parts and accessories were classified under Tariff Heading 84.48. Later on, the department felt that some of the parts such as shafts and bushes manufactured and cleared by the respondents were classifiable under Heading 84.83. A show cause notice dt.31-10-1989 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise directing the respondents as to why parts and accessories as above should not be reclassified under Tariff Heading 84.83 and why the differential duty of Rs. 16538.38 BED and Rs. 826.92 SED should not be recovered from them Under Section 11A of the Act for the period 6-4-1989 to 31-10-1989.1.2 The respondents herein urged that the shafts in question do not perform any function of transmission; therefore, they cannot be called transmission shafts. In their case function of shaft is only to connect the different parts. This functio...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Ahluwalia Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)50ITD208(Delhi)
1. The short point involved in these two appeals by the assessee is whether on facts the learned DCWT(A) is justified in upholding the withdrawal of proportionate liabilities towards municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 47,549 and Rs. 42,445 in assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 by applying provisions of Section 2(m)(ii) of Wealth-tax Act (the Act) in rectification proceedings carried under Section 35 of the Act.2. The facts briefly stated are that assessee's returns of wealth were accepted under Section 16(1) of the Acton March 20, 1987. In the aforesaid assessed wealth, the deduction of entire municipal taxes on house property including the portion which was treated as exempt under Section 5(1)(iu) of the Wealth-tax Act was allowed. It is seen from record that in assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the proportionate liabilities of municipal taxes attributable to the portion of the house, treated as exempt was disallowed and this disallowance was confirmed on appeal by Income-tax App...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. M/S. Gyan Dev and Sons and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi43; 54(1994)DLT400
ORDER1. This revision petition is listed today for final hearing along with a note in the cause list 'No adjournment will be given in first 10 cases. Counsel are requested to be ready with their briefs.'2. As none appeared for respondents till 2.40 p.m. the learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard on merits....
Tag this Judgment!Gurbachan Singh Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1994Delhi469
Jaspal Singh, J.1. Here is yet another son crossing swords with his father. The fall out is litigation, civil as well as criminal. The present is a revision petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated on the complaint of the son. Obviously, the revision petitioner is the father. 2. Let me first provide the backdrop. 3. Inderjit Singh Sahni and his father Gurbachan Singh entered into partnership vide deed of Partnership dated May 1, 1992. The business was to be run under the name and style of M/s. Bakshi Transport Service from the premises bearing shop No. 468, First Floor, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Chandni Chowk. Soon enough the venture ran into rough weather and saw the son petitioning this court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Gurbachan Singh, the father, was arrayed as the respondent Along with petition was moved an application under Section 41 read with Schedule II of the Arbi...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ223; 1994LabIC1587; (1994)IILLJ1034Del; 1994RLR311
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of the Central Government refusing to refer the Industrial Disputes raised by the petitioner to the Industrial Tribunal. 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows : 3. On August 14, 1970 the Syndicate Bank [for short 'Bank'], appointed the petitioner as a temporary attender for a period of two months on a salary of Rs. 92/- with a special allowance of Rs. 7/- and House Rent Allowance of Rs. 11/- per month. Pursuant to the order of appointment, the petitioner join the service of the bank. By a written communication dated January 22, 1971 the Custodian of the bank in suppression of the earlier letter of appointment dated August 14, 1970 informed the petitioner that he had been appointed as a probationary attender to work at Delhi - Mayapuri Branch of the bank form August 17, 1970 on a salary of Rs. 116/-, special allowance of Rs. 10/-, HRA of...
Tag this Judgment!Appeal Advertising and Marketing Consultants Vs. Spantech Publishers P ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)989; 1994(28)DRJ695
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a suit for recovery ofRs.507328.00 with pendente lite and future interest @ 20% p.a. filed by the plaintiff against the defendants under the provision of Order xxxvii of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). (2) Briefly stated the facts as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff which is a proprietary concern is carrying on the business of advertising and marketing consultants. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff obtained an order of publishing 'COFFEE Table Book On U.P.' from the U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation and entered into a written contract with defendant No. I and the agreement between the parties was executed on 30th day of September, 1991. The defendant No.2 had executed the agreement as Managing Director of the defendant No. I. In terms of the said agreement, the First Print run was of 3000 copies and the agreement between the parties was for a sum of Rs.7,l 1.450.00 and each book was to cost Rs.279...
Tag this Judgment!Gian Chand and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1095; 54(1994)DLT20; 1994(29)DRJ27
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Four persons namely. Sukhpal @ Satpal. Bhagwat Braham Singh and Gian Chand have been charged under Section 120-B and under Sections 364, 302 and 201 all read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. One of them namely. Bhagwat has also been charged exclusively under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Though all the persons named above are petitioners before me, at the lime of arguments, the petition was pressed only on behalf of Braham Singh and Gian Chand.(2) Briefly slated the case of the prosecution is that there was some properly transaction between the deceased Rajbir Singh and Bhagwat and that on July 27. 1990 it was Bhagwat petitioner who had abducted him in order that he might be murdered. It was only thereafter that Rajbir's dead body was recovered. It is also the case of the prosecution that all the petitioners before me had made an effort to dispose of the body of the deceased at a Pushia.(3) Unfortunately, the family of the deceased was not satisfi...
Tag this Judgment!Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT693
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman has filed this appeal aginst hisconviction under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 13.10.1976and sentence to R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default to undergo further R.I. for three months vide order dated 21.10.1976 by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.(2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution has been that on 28.10.1975 D.D.No. 6-A was recorded at Police Station Kamla Market on the basis of information conveyed on telephone by Duty Constable from Irwin Hospital about the admission of Kanhaiya. Copy of this D.D. entry was given to S.I. Baldev Singh who, while accompanied by a Constable, reached the hospital and collected M.L.C. number31443 in respect ofKanhaiya. The injured was, however, declared by the Doctor to be unfit for statement.(3) Amar Singh son of Pratap Singh met the Police Officer in the hospital,whose statement was recorded. It was inter alias stated by Amar Singh that he was a driver on...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Thapar and ors. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)852; 1994(28)DRJ593; 1994LabIC1495
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition has been filed by the promotee officers of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (for short DESU) impugning the provisional seniority list dated April 24, 1992, which has subsequently been confirmed and finalised by the Seniority list dated April 27, 1993, and continuation of the same on May 14, 1993. The challenge has been based on the interpretation of the Regulations made by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under Section 98 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as '1968 Regulations'). The said Regulations are known as ' Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (D.M.C.) (Seniority) Regulations, 1968, which fixes the basis of the relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees, as well as, the principle of rotation of vacancies vide clause 7 of the Regulations. (2) The petitioners also amended the writ petition by moving an application C.M.No. 4966 of 1993) for urging certain additional grounds in support of their chal...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Murti Sharma and ors. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and or ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1994Delhi477
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present writ petition raises the question of counting the ad hoc service of the petitioners from the date of such appointments for purposes of determining the seniority. The other questions of law, which have also been raised, relate to the interpretation of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (D.M.C.) (Seniority) Regulations, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as '1968 Regulations'), with regard to quota for promotees and direct 'recruits in the service and the operation of rotational rule. These questions have already been dealt with vide my separate judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 3153/92 entitled Shri P. K. Thappar and others v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and othters, (1) and it will not be necessary for me to re-state the same hi the present judgment. The main contention in that writ petition was that since the quota had collapsed and broken down, seniority could not be determined on the basis of quota and rota and the same became liable to be determined...
Tag this Judgment!