Delhi Court July 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.
Plyboard Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC577Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an application filed by the applicants seeking for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal. Number of days is not forthcoming in the application but we find that the impugned order was received by the applicants on 6-3-1991 and the appeal (EA-3) was filed in the office of the Registry on 15-1-1992.2. List of dates and events given by the applicants during the course of the hearing on 12-7-1994 is as follows :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. Date Event--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. 27-2-1991 Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.3. 9-5-1991 The appellants filed in the office of Collector of Central Excise (Ap- 30-9-1985 Copy of Gazette of India taking over Ply Board Industries Limited, Pampore.4. 14-5-1991 Letter from Supdt. (Appeals) of Of- fice of Collector (Appeals), Chan-5. 28-5-1991 Letter No. PBI/SLS/91/313 of the appellants address...
India Rice Mill Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)51ITD307(Delhi)
1. In an appeal filed, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 24-12-1986 confirming the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) has been challenged by the assessee.2. Shri Sandeep Sapra appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Ahuja Sarangi represented the department.3. The assessee-firm was constituted on 12-8-1977 with 10 partners. It acquired licence to carry on the rice milling business on 27-1-1978.The business activity was started on 12-2-1978. It filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 30,773 on 31-7-1979. This was revised to Rs. 30,823 in response to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The assessment was framed at an income of Rs. 1,36,534 (excluding the tax payable by the firm). The difference between the loss returned and the income assessed arose on account of addition of Rs. 1,43,000 made under the head "Unexplained investment by the partners".In appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the assessee had not failed t...
Prem Kumar Khullar Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT357; 1994(30)DRJ643; 1994RLR525
Usha Mehra, J.(1) The present controversy revolves around the statement of the petitioner that he would withdraw all his pending cases within one month from the date of the last receipt of the Installment of arrears of rent. Mr.P.N.Bhardwaj, counsel for respondent contended that since -all the cases which were stated in the statement of respondent had not been withdrawn by the petitioner within one month, thereforee, the respondent stood absolved from his undertaking given to the Court dated 19th April,1991. Hence, no contempt proceedings can be initiated against him.(2) Shri Prem Khullar, petitioner herein, had filed eviction petition against M/s Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. and Anr. Order of eviction was, however, passed against the said firm only by the Rent Controller on 6th November,1990. So far as the respondent No.2 Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta, order of eviction was not passed against him. After the eviction order the landlord took out execution. Against the execution the present respond...
Pranjal Verma and Sawalia Saurabh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ378
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The two petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the respondents numbering three for admission to Delhi College of Engineering in the academic year 1994-95 on the basis of their ranking in the entrance test. The respondents are Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources; the Principal, Delhi College of Engineering; and the Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi. (2) The petitioners passed 12th standard examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in the year 1994 securing respectively 51.3% and 58.3% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, and also passed each of these three subjects. They say after the entrance test was held by respondents 2 and 3 for admission to Bachelor of Engineering Course in the Delhi College of Engineering,' the two petitioners ranked 24 and 44 respect (3) The respondents have denied the right of the petitioners. They say with reference to Bulletin of Information issued regarding combined ent...
Bawa Harbans Singh Vs. Versha Rani Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)Crimes227; 55(1994)DLT657
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioner has filed revision petition against the order dated 24.10.91, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The complaint has been dismissed on the ground of delay of more than one year in filing the complaint under Sections 340 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.(2) Admittedly, the alleged incident had taken place on 6th/ 7/08/1986.The complaint was filed on 31/01/1989. The maximum sentence which can be awarded for an offence under Section 340, provided in Section 341,Indian Penal Code is one month and a fine of Rs. 500.00or both, and for an offence under Section 448,1.P.C.is one year or fine of Rs. 1000.00 or both. The complainant has also moved an application for condensation of delay.(3) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has mentioned in the order that the accused had filed complaints earlier also which were dismissed in default. The date of incident is 6/07/1986,. and complaint was filed on 3/01/1989.(4) I have gone through the averments...
Selvedge Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)808; 1994(31)DRJ325
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner, a partnership firm, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to return to the petitioner Rs.2,80,000.00 along with interest thereon from the date this amount was seized and till its payment and has also sought a direction to the respondents to pay to it a reward of 20% for giving information to the petitioner (respondents) pursuant to which the department unearthed under invoicing/over invoicing to the tune of over Rs.50 lakhs. The petitioner also wants a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. There are three respondents. First respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; the second is the Director of Enforcement; and the third is the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, both under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'F.E.R.A.') (2) Noise...
Nirmala Kapoor Vs. Arun Kumar Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT385; 1994(30)DRJ350
Sat Pal, J. (1) This petition has been filed by Smt. Nirmala Kapur (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9th May, 1994 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 22nd January, 1994 of Shri P.C. Ranga, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. (2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the landlady filed a petition bearing No.E-9/91 on 18th January, 1991 under Section 14(I)(b) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the Act) against the respondents 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) and Shri Sanjeev Kumar, (hereinafter referred to as the 'alleged tenant') alleging therein that the tenants had wrongfully, without the knowledge and consent of the landlady sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the premises bearing No.Y-14B, Green Park (Main), New Delhi to Shri Sanjeev Kumar. It may be noted here that prior to filing of this pet...
Sarabjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)729; 1994CriLJ392; 1994(3)Crimes217; 58(1994)DLT439; 1994(30)DRJ625
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with the prayer that detention order dated 23rd September, 1991 passed against the petitioner by the Lt. Governor, Government, National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) read with 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, be set aside. It is alleged that on 27.4.91, the petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Bangkok by flight no.TG-914. After immigration clearance, the petitioner was made to pass through a metal detector door frame which gave positive signal of presence of metal on his person. He was allowed to proceed for his normal custom clearance under a strict vigil. The petitioner passed through green channel and at exit gate of the Customs arrival room, he was intercepted by the Custom Officer. He did not have any check-in-bagg...
India Habitat Centre Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)247; 1994(31)DRJ163
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This is an application for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from implementing the assessment orders dated 17.3.93 and 4.6.94 (Annexures P-10 and P-17), bill dated 23.7.93 (Annexure P-11), demand notice dated 30.8.93 (Annexure P-13) and the warrants of distress dated 1.7.94 (Annexures P-20 & P- 21). (2) The dispute is between the petitioner- India Habitat Centre and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (3) By an order dated 12.7.94 we granted stay of execution of the distress warrants dated 1.7.94 (Annexures P-20 and P-21) pending pronouncement of reasoned orders and we are pronouncing the reasoned order now. (4) EXS. P-20 and P-21 are attachment orders addressed to the State Bank of India and the Indian Bank, New Delhi for the purpose of attaching the sum of Rs. 41,16,400.00 issued by the Deputy/Asstt. Assessor & Collector, Special Assessment Unit, Minto Road, New Delhi and a copy is addressed to the Executive Director, M/s India Habitat Cent...
Virgo Steels Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT763TriDel
1. By the present application, the appellant has made a prayer for modification of the earlier Stay Order No. 35/94-WRB, dated 11-1-1994.Shri Anil Balani, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He pleaded that in covering letter to the miscellaneous application dated 6-5-1994, the appellant had made a mention that the jurisdiction pertains to the Regional Bench. He argued that he does not press for the action on the letter dated 6th May, 1994.2. Shri B.K. Singh, learned SDR who is present on behalf of the respondent stated that it is not a Regional Bench matter.3. Both the sides agreed that it is not a Regional Bench matter.Accordingly, we proceeded to hear the miscellaneous application.4. Shri Anil Balani, learned Advocate pleaded that the appellant is suffering a huge financial hardship as various Banks have filed suits against the appellant and the appellant has not been able to get the bank guarantee from the banks in spite of best efforts by the appellant. He p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »