Delhi Court March 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.
Collector of C. Excise Vs. Rajasthan Vanaspati Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT78TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the department against order of Collector (Appeals), Delhi dated 29-12-1989.2. It is observed from the records that Notice of Hearing was issued by the Registry on 16-2-1994. But no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent.3. Ld. DR stated that in this case, the Respondents availed of money credit benefit without filing the proper procedure as prescribed under Rule 57(O)2. This rule requires the manufacturer to file a declaration with the Assist. Collector indicating the description of the final product and the input and such other information as may be required and the benefit can be availed of in terms of 57(O)2 only after obtaining the acknowledgement of the receipt of declaration filed under 57(O)1.Yet the Collector (Appeals) allowed their appeal merely on the ground that the benefit had been claimed on classification list.4. It is their submission that the purpose of filing classification list under Rule 173B is different and its approval is only for c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Del)74; ILR1995Delhi239; [1994]208ITR379(Delhi)
D. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal', for short) referred to this court the following question, stated to be a question of law, for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest income on investment of share capital derived by the assessed could not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessed-company because it has not started it business?' 2. The statement of case drawn up by the Tribunal is brief and we may reproduce the same : 'The assessed is a limited company. Its relevant accounting year ended on March 30, 1973. The company was still in the process of being commissioner and had not commenced production. The assessed-company had collected funds by way of share capital which were deposited in banks on which interest of Rs. 3,21,679 was earned. The assessed claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the sai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cement Distributors Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)173; (1994)119CTR(Del)496; 1994(29)DRJ104; [1994]208ITR355(Delhi)
D.K. Jain J. 1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessed's claim for deduction under section 80HH for its units, Messrs. Rockford Asbestos, despite the fact that this unit was leased out to Messrs. Hari Bros. (P.) Ltd., and the assessed company did not derive any profit from manufacturing operations? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessed's claim under section 80J for its unit, Messrs. Rockford Asbestos, and directing the Income-tax Officer to determine the relief as per the rules, on the ground that having held that the assessed is entitled to deduction under section 80HH, the assessed is also entitled to deduction under section 80J?' 2. A...
Sangeeta Sharma Vs. Rajiv Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)49; 1994(29)DRJ87
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition has been filed to impugn the order dated May 13, 1992. passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, by which the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of maintenance pendente lite was disposed of. The learned Judge had decided the application after considering the respective contentions of the parties and awarded the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.500.00 per moth from the date of filing of the application i.e. May 7, 1990 till the final disposal of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) (i-a)of the Act. The petitioner was not awarded any litigation expenses on the ground that her case was being land led by her own Senior, which meant that litigation expenses were negligible. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner las assailed the Order of the Additional District Judge and contended that the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocat...
John Oakey and Mohan Ltd. Vs. Million Abrasives Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi288; 1994(29)DRJ307
Usha Mehra, J. (1) M/SJOHN Oakey & Mohan Ltd. felt aggrieved against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dated 3rd December, 1992, whereby his opposition was rejected/dismissed, hence challenged the same by this petition.(2) In order to appreciate the objection of the petitioner against the impugned order, the brief facts which require consideration and which are relevant for proper adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is dealing in the business of manufacturing coated and bonded abrasives under the trade name of 'OAKEV s'. The petitioner is the registered proprietor of his trade mark OAKEY's with the device of globe which device is duly registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. He has been using this trade mark since the year 1972. He has acquired reputation in the market because of his high standard quality of products. His trade mark, according to him, has contained distinctive mark and is associated with the good quality of abrasives....
Alpha Toyo Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC310Tri(Delhi)
1. In these set of appeals, a common question of law and facts arises, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The short question that arises for our consideration in these appeals is as to whether the clearances of all the five units can be clubbed on the basis of interest free loan granted by the M/s. Alpha Toyo Ltd. to other four units and also in view of similar financial assistance among the other four units, notwithstanding the fact that all the five units are independently incorporated with separate licences viz. L-4 licence, ST and IT registration and having independent functioning in all respects of setting up of machinery, manufacture, labour, telephone, sales, purchase and other aspects of the managements. The show cause notice dt. 25-9-1991 issued for all the units is on the basis of 4th Annual Report of the year 1986-87, 5th Annual Report for the year 1987-88,6th Annual Report for the year 1988-89 and 7th Annual Report for the year 1989-90 in respect of ...
Siya Ram Platex (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT915TriDel
1. These are stay applications filed by two different appellants against two different orders but both the sides submit that the issue involved is the same.2. In both the cases the goods received as inputs by the appellants were the ones which had been manufactured by IPCL but were not received directly from IPCL; instead the IPCL had sent the consignments to their stockists/dealers and the latter had subsequently sold it to the appellants. In the process the goods had travelled from Vadodra to Jaipur and from there to the appellants' unit at Jaipur.3. As a result the gate pass issued by IPCL had to be first endorsed to the godowns under the stockists and then from there to the appellants.In both the cases the original gate passes have since been endorsed by the stockists.4. Some of these gate passes cover the entire consignment cleared from IPCL whereas some of them cover part consignment.5. A question has arisen whether the procedure which has been followed is correct and if not whe...
Hargovind Jaggi Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR92(Delhi); 55(1994)DLT73
Mr. Mohd. Shamim, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act (registered as Suit No. 2086/90 for issue of a direction to respondent No. 3 i.e. Shri Om Prakash, Arbitrator to file the award dated April 26, 1990 and to make the same a rule of the court. 2. Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under that respondent No. 1 herein awarded a contract with regard to construction of Store with Railways siding facilities at G.T.K. Road SH : Construction of room for electrical JE and Security Guard room vide agreement No. 6/EE/SDI/DDA/85-86 on behalf of respondent No. 2. Certain disputes and differences arose in between the parties with regard to the execution of the said contract and that same were referred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 entered the reference and published his award on April 26, 1990. 3. The said award was filed before this court in Suit No. 356/91. Notices were issued to both the parties to pr...
Kesar Enterprises Ltd. and Petroleum and Petrochemical Purveyors Vs. U ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)100; 1994(1)ARBLR413(Delhi); 1994(29)DRJ62; (1994)108PLR17
ORDERSat Pal, J.1. By this order I am disposing of both IAs bearing No. 9297/89 and 9302/89 as the point raised in both the applications is identical. is 9297/89 in Suit No. 3405/89 has been filed on behalf of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and is 9302/89 in Suit No. 3408/89 has been filed on behalf of Petroleum & Petro Chemical Purveyors (hereinafter) referred to as the Firm) under Section 41 Schedule II of Arbitration Act read with Section 151 CPC and in both the applications it has been prayed that proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises Act pending before the Estate Officer, Northern Railway DRM Office. New Delhi be stayed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Company in terms of agreements dated 6.1.1962 and 3.9.1980 with the President of India acting through the Divisional Suprintendent of Northern Railway was allowed as the licensee the use of contiguous pieces of land admeasuring about 15352.5 sq. mtrs. adjacent...
Petroleum and Petrochemical Purveyors and ors. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR22(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT428
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) By this order I am disposing of both lAs bearing No.9297/89 and 9302/89 as the point raised in both the applications is identical. IA9297/89 in S.No. 3405/89 has been filed on behalf of Kesar Enterprises Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and is 9302/89 in S.No.3408/89 has been filed on behalf of Petroleum & PetroChemical Purveyors (hereinafter referred teas theFirm) under Section 41 Schedule Ii of Arbitration Act read with Section 151 CPC and in both the applications it has been prayed that proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises Act pending before the Estate Officer, Northern Railway Drm Office, New Delhi be stayed:(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Company in terms of agreements dated 6.1.62 and 3.9.80 with the President of India acting through the Divisional Supdt. of Northern Railway was allowed as the licensee the Use of contiguous pieces of land admeasuring about 15352.5 sq.mtrs adjacent to RailwayStation. On thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »