Delhi Court February 1994 Judgments

Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)749; (1994)118CTR(Del)109; 1994(28)DRJ532; [1994]208ITR785(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. These are two cross-references by the assessed and the Revenue in respect of the assessment year 1971-72. Since a common statement of case has been drawn up by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, these are being disposed of together. The questions referred at the instance of the assessed (Income-tax Reference No. 284 of 1982) are as under : '1. Whether in computing the capital employed in respect of a new industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80J, the debts owned by the assessed relating to the undertaking should be deducted 2. Whether in computing the capital employed in respect of a new industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80J, the written down value of assets should be taken and not the original cost ?' 2. The questions referred at the instance of the Revenue (Income-tax Reference No. 285 of 1982) are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire expendit...

NavIn Panwar @ Neetu Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 54(1994)DLT120

V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Navin Panwar alias Neetu has moved this petition for being released on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code in Fir No.450/93, recorded at Police Station R.K.Puram, New Delhi. It is a case in respect of an incident dated 1.9.1993 in which , one Manish Gaur alias Montee sustained injuries resulting in his death. According to the prosecution story, the petitioner had inflicted 7-8 knife injuries to the deceased.(2) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was a child, less than 16 years, at the time of the alleged incident and keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act,1986 (thereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the petitioner ought to have been released on bail. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not a previous convict and he has parents to look after and take care of him. He has also submitted that the Juvenile Court as also the learned Additio...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sukhvir Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 53(1994)DLT821

K.S. Bhat, J. (1) According to the petitioner the first respondent was employed for a limited period on daily-wage basis and that he was engaged between 11.11.1980 to 17.3.1982 and thereafter he did not turn up for work. inspire of this, subsequently he insisted that he was an employee of the petitioner Corporation. The workman contended that he was employed as a mali beldar since 11.11.1980 as muster-roll employee and was being paid the wages at the rate fixed by Delhi Administration under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled casual workers. According to him he was deemed to be a permanent employee. (2) Before the Labour Court there was no dispute that the workman was engaged as muster-roll Beldar in the Horticulture Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. There was also no dispute that he was engaged between 11.11.1980 to 17.3.1982; thereafter he abandoned the services. The Labour Court proceeded to consider the question - Whether the workman abandoned the ...

Mohd. Ilyas and anr. Vs. Mohd. Adil and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)739; AIR1994Delhi212; 53(1994)DLT655; 1994(28)DRJ706; (1994)108PLR26

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24 August 1985 of the Sub Judge. First Class. Delhi, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed. A decree of possession was passed in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants respecting shop bearing No. 660, Ward No. Vii, Bazar Farashkhana. Delhi. (2) The plaintiffs being the legal representatives of deceased Mohd. Aqil filed the suit for possession in January 1973. Principal contesting plaintiff would be Mohd. Adil (the First plaintiff) son of Mohd. Aqil. There were lour defendants. Defendants land 2 (now the appellants)arcstepbrolhcrs of Mohd. Aquil. They are all.however.sons of Mohd.Yunus. The third respondent is the daughter of Mohd. Aqil, now living in Pakistan, and fourth is BholaNath. purchaser of the property in question from the Competent Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, being a composite property. Plaintiffs said that shops No. 660 and 661. Ward No.VII...

Gurbux Singh Vs. Skipper Construction Company (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the respondent is carrying on the business of construction of flats. They advertised in leading newspapers that they were giving flats at Bau Makkhan Singh House, Jhandewalan Tower on concessional rates i.e. @ Rs. 900/- per sq. feet, to retired defence personnel in order to help them to have regular income source. They offered the commercial space of 100 sq. feet only to such persons. It was alleged by them that the market rate of the space was Rs. 1,600/- per sq. feet. The applicant was required to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the first instance and the balance amount in easy instalments linked with the construction. 2. The Complainant, it is pleaded, attracted by the advertisement applied for a flat and deposited a total amount of Rs. 45,000/-as detailed below:S.No.AmountDate of DepositReceipt No.1.Rs. 10,000/-15.12.91Form No. 049232.Rs. 25,000/-25.1.92.Receipt No. 92313.Rs. 10,000/-1.2.92Receipt No. 9953Rs. 45,000/-The respon...

Dr. Lalita Badhwar Vs. Pradeep Kumar Kumra and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are, that respondent No. 2 M/s. Delhi Hospital Supply Corporation is carrying on the business of Hospital and Medical Equipment supplies in Delhi and respondent No. 1 is its President. The complainant purchased one Karl Storz End vision Camera from the respondent on 13.5.91 for a consideration of Rs. 2,69,036.25 (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousands Thirty Six and Twenty Five Paise only). It is pleaded, that the complainant is invited to national and international conferences to deliver lectures and read papers on her research on the new technique in pelvis copy surgery and the camera was purchased by her for research work mainly. 2. The camera carried a warranty for a period of one year. However, it developed defects in late Feb. 1992 and went out of order on 10.3.92. On her complaint to the respondents their Technical Manager, Mr. Surinder Mehta examined it and said that it was required to be sent back to Germany for repair/rep...

Bhupendra Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT373TriDel

1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 24-11-1993.2. Ld. Counsel stated that in this case they had duly filed modified declaration and the input as well as output were covered by modvat scheme and there was no dispute regarding this aspect or utilisation of the input for manufacture of final output.3. They had received the goods under proper gate passes and taken credit accordingly, but the same is sought to be denied on the sole ground that the appellants were job workers.4. It was their submission that the benefit to them could not be denied on this score.5. It was also his submission that in order to show that the goods had been received under gate passes, he has filed photocopies of the relevant gate passes.6. Ld. DR stated that ld. Collector (Appeals) has mentioned that gate passes were not produced before him. Further the copies of the gate passes so endorsed have, on their back, shown that the ...

Collector of C. Excise Vs. Ga

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC377Tri(Delhi)

1. The above appeals involve identical issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Gavs Laboratories P. Ltd. who are holders of L 4 Licence for the manufacture of tooth paste, cosmetics, etc., entered into an agreement on 28-2-1989 with M/s. Usha Intercontinental (India) Ltd. (merchant exporter) for manufacture and supply of Usha Tooth paste (Fluoride) for export to USSR against a contract entered into by the merchant exporter with M/s. Sojuzchem Export in June 1989. Merchant Exporter applied for an advance licence under Duty Exemption Scheme in terms of para 19 of the Import and Export Policy AM 1988 -1991 wherein M/s. Gavs Laboratories was shown as the supporting manufacturer. The Advance Licensing Committee approved issue of advance licence and accordingly JCCIE issued advance licence dated 16-8-1989 for import of Glycerine, Sodium Lauryl Sulphate, Sodium Monoflurophosphate, Spearment Oil and Peppermint Oil. A Duty Exemption Entitlement Certific...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. S.N.T. Plywood Ind. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT369TriDel

1. The Collector, Central Excise, Meerut has filed this appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order held "Rule 57C prohibits allowing of credit on final products which are exempt from whole of duty of Excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty. There is no specific provision in this Rule for disallowing the modvat credit correctly taken and utilised but for becoming the final products exempt from payment of duty at a later stage. In the instant case the credit was correctly taken as per provisions of Rules 57A and 57G and utilised for payment of duty on final products as per provisions of Rule 57F. The ratio of judgments as cited above is squarely applicable in this case. In view of the above facts, I find that the impugned order is not maintainable. It is, therefore set aside." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. S.N.T. Plywood Industries are manufacturers of wood and articles of wood and were availing mod...

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC188Tri(Delhi)

1. The contravention or otherwise of Section 18(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and consequent eligibility to confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 of foreign currency sought to be despatched on 28-3-1987 in the form of registered letters through Air Post Mail by the appellants who are authorised dealers in foreign exchange, to their overseas offices arises for determination in the above appeal.2. Initially the case of the Department as elaborated in the show cause notice was that the appellants, as per the conditions of the Licence issued to them by the Reserve Bank of India in terms of Section 6 of the FERA, 1973, are entitled to transfer of funds abroad against RBI permits by way of Demand Draft, Mail Transfer and Telegraphic Transfers on Thomas Cook's offices abroad. Even though the general permission had been granted by the RBI under Notification 36/76 RBI dated 10-5-1976 to authorised dealers to send out of India foreign currency in the form ...