Delhi Court May 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.
Kesar Enterprises Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR136(Delhi); 1994(30)DRJ176
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This order will govern two appeals, namely, FAO (OS) Nos. 125 and 126 of 1994 which arise from the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 23, 1994 whereby the applications of the appellants under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 have been rejected. 2. The appellants entered into deeds of license with the President of India through Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railways, New Delhi, in respect of pieces of lands contiguous to railway line at Shakurbasti. According to clause 17 occurring in each of the deeds, the license fee is liable to be revised at any time at the discretion of the Administration after the service of one month's notice on the licensee of the Administration's intention to revise the license fee. The said clause reads as under : 'That the license fee stipulated in this agreement is liable to be revised at any time at the discretion of the Administration after the service of one month's notice on the licensee of the Administration'...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jyotsna Holdings (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)145; 55(1994)DLT111; [1995]211ITR67(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J. 1. By this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer to this Court as many as 33 following questions, stated to be questions of law, arising out of a common order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1950-52 (Del) of 1990, pertaining to asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1987-88 : '1. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in entertaining and adjudicating upon the assessed's plea that the consultancy fee accrued to it on 11th Sept., 1987, i.e., in the previous year relevant for asst. yr. 1988-89, whereas the CIT in the exercise of his jurisdiction under s. 263 had examined the assessment records of the assessed for asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and came to the conclusion that the assessment orders passed therein were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue 2. Whether the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction when it entertained the assessed's ground that consultanc...
Bhisham Sawhney and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)801; 1994(30)DRJ318
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated July 7,1993 whereby is No.4262 of 1990 under order 39 rule4CPC filed in Suit No2011 of 1986 was rejected on the ground that the appellants, who had moved the application, were not parties in the suit.(2) The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: State Bank of India, respondent No.1 /plaintiff filed a suit in respect of loans and facilities lent and advanced to respondent 2/ defendant I . Respondents 3 and 4/ defendants.2 and 3 are the guarantors in respect of loans sanctioned and advanced by respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 5 to 10, who are defendants 4 to 9, in the suit are the legal heirs of late Shri Ram Gopal who was also a guarantor in respect of the various loans advanced by the respondent No. 1 to respondent No.2. In the suit, the following reliefs,inter alia, are claimed against the respondent 2 to. 10: (a) This Hon'ble court be pleased to pass a money decree against defen...
V.P. Chetal and M.P. Gogia Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)189; 1994(30)DRJ76; 1994LabIC2422
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) RULE-D.B. We have heard the parties at length and proceed to deliver judgment.(2) The two petitioners, respectively the Chief Engineer and Assistant Engineer in the New Delhi Municipal Committee ('N.D.M.C.' for shorrt), seek quashing of the * departmental enquiry against them. There are five respondents, namely. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs; Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.); Enquiry Officer; and Central Vigilance Commission; and the N.D.M.C.(3) C.B.I, on 12 September 1988 registered an F.I.R. No. RC-47/88-DL.I on the basis of a complaint of one Surinder Kumar, a contractor, alleging that the first petitioner Chetal was demanding a bribe of Rs.10,000.00 from him for favoring him in the award offenders for construction of a school building at Netaji Nagar, New Delhi. During the course of investigation, a trap was laid against Chetal and the second petitioner Gogia for having demanded and accepted Rs.1(),000.00 as bribe from Sur...
Madan Mohan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(29)DRJ433
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This revision petition has arisen out of an order dated 6.2.1980 passed by Shri K.S. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's appeal and thereby confirming the judgment dated 15.4.1978 passed by Shri O.P.Divedi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') and the order dated 20.4.1978 sentencing the petitioner to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 each in regard to both the said offences. (2) The background of the case is that in September, 1968, the petitioner approached State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chandni Chowk, Delhi Crl.R.39/ 80 for being allowed Cash Credit Facility up tors.25,000.00 against pledge of stock of soap and soap oil with the bank. Necessary formalities were completed by executing loan documents. C.C. Limit was later on enhanced to Rs.50,000.00 .ln the month of June, 1970 it ca...
Ashoka Produts Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)575; 1994(30)DRJ228
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) Rule D.B.(2) By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order dated October 27, 1986 of the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports imposing 9 fiscal penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 on the petitioner as well as directing debannent of the petitioner from receiving import licenses and allotment of imported goods from State Trading Corporation/Metal & Minerals Trading Corporation from 1986-87 to 1988-89 and the order of the Appellate Authority of January, 1993 (Annexure Ix to the petition) confirming the said order of the Primary Authority.(3) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under: The petitioner is a small scale industry manufacturing printed/plain tin containers. Tin plate used for production of containers is procured from indigenous sources and/or through imports. On the basis of the statement of past consumption of raw material for the year 1979-80 furnished by the petitioner, an import license dated October 6, 1981 of the value of...
Mascot (India) Tools and Forgings Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT339TriDel
1. M/s. Mascot (India) Tools & Forgings have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Collector. The Addl. Collector in his order had held :- "The Grinding Belt on which the party had availed modvat is a contrivance used for grinding and finishing forged tool shaped products to bring about change. Thus in my opinion, it falls within the purview of exclusion as provided in the explanation and would not be considered as 'input' for the purpose of modvat under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the defence arguments and hold that duty paid on grinding belts cannot be taken credit of for payment of duty on handtools, the final product, under modvat scheme 'Grinding Belts' not being input in terms of explanation appended to Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of handtools. Grinding Belt was declared as an input and modvat credit amounting to Rs....
G. Winpenny Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD501(Delhi)
1. All these appeals are directed against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby he has upheld the action on the part of the Income-tax Officer in subjecting to tax the salary paid to the assessees by their employer for the 28 days off periods when they were physically off the rigs installed in Indian coastal waters.2. To set out the brief facts of the case, the appellants are foreign technicians, who have been deputed by their foreign employer, namely, M/s. Atwood Oceanics International S.A., to work on the rigs situated off the Indian coast pursuant to the contract entered into between the said foreign employer and ONGC.3. In the course of the assessment proceedings it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the salary for the off periods when they were off the rigs being physically outside India and the said salary having been paid outside India was not taxable in India. The aforesaid claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer primarily ...
Akhil Sibal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1994
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi480
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Value of agricultural land to its owner and to the peasant alike is as valuable as their life, beside being sentimentally attached to it, such land provides them their livelihood. thereforee, when such a valuable part of their possession is to be taken away or they are to be deprived of the same, the legislature cast a mandatory duty on. the Authority concerned to comply strictly the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act). The said Act lays down various procedures to be followed before depriving a person of his land. First, the appropriate government has to make known to the public its intention to acquire the land and also the public purpose for which it is to be acquired. This intention and the public purpose is conveyed to the public as well as to the person whose land is to be acquired by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. This notification is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers to be exercisedby the auth...
Nestle S.A. and Others Vs. I.D. Kansal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi311
ORDER1. I have heard arguments in order to decide whether this petition seeking a winding up order against respondent No. 3 company should be admitted or not.2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No. 1, Sh. I. D. Kansal, floated respondent No. 3 company which was incorporated on 19th February, 1987 and Certificate of Commencement of its business was obtained on March 12, 1987. The objects of the company were to manufacture, produce, refine, preserve, distribute and deal in import and export of all kinds of processed foods, etc. In early part of 1988, respondent No. 1 approached M/s. Food Specialities Limited (latter on converted as Nestle India Limited) for setting up a joint venture. Nestle India Limited is one of the major manufactures, producers and sellers of food products and it has the brand backing of Nestle SA, petitioner No. 1, which is a multinational company incorporated in Switzerland.3. Under the then prevailing law in India, petitioner No. 1 could acquire on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »