Delhi Court September 1994 Judgments

ScIndia Potteries and Services Ltd. Vs. Deputy Land and Devolpment Off ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)221; 1994(31)DRJ233; [1995]213ITR260(Delhi); 1994RLR543

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) In Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., : [1985]1SCR216 the Supreme Court tells us that a High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually. However, Mr.P.N.Lekhi, Senior Advocate tells me that no person, even necessary, can be imp leaded as a party to a writ petition for the reason that Order I Rule 1.0 of the Code of Civil procedure is not applicable to any proceeding under Article 226. And, in support he relies not only upon section 141 of the Code of Civil procedure but also upon two judgments namely. Rev. Fr. Antony Nimppal v. State. : AIR1980Ker199 and State of Kerala v. C.U. Scaria : AIR1994Ker35 . (2) Before the year 1976 there was a difference of opinion as to whethe...

Ahuja Traders Vs. Canara Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant is exporting goods to various countries. Two bills were drawn by them (Complainant) on M/s. Tiru Garment Industries, Kathmandu; one for Rs. 1,78,947/- and the other for Rs. 6,24,541.71 on 26th September 1988. The bills were submitted to the Opposite Party (O.P.) for collection around 26.9.88 against the letters of credit opened by Rashtriya Banijya Bank Ltd. Kathmandu, Nepal, (hereinafter referred to as the Nepal Bank) on behalf of the drawees of the bills. 2. It is alleged that generally bills are received within 2 weeks or so from the date of submitting them to the O.P. for collection, but the proceeds in the present case were credited to the account of the complainant on 9th December, 1988. They received a letter dated 15th Jan., 90 from the O.P. informing that the proceeds of the bills had been received by them on 29th March, 1989 whereas the credit for the amount had been given in their account on 9.12.88. Cons...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahendra Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT270TriDel

1. Collector, Central Excise, Ahmedabad has challenged the order of the Collector Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) had held :- "I have considered the matter and it is clear that the appellants have a case. As the appellants have correctly pointed out, Explanation to Item 18-IV would make it clear that the said item only covers waste arising in the manufacture of man-made filament yarn and not in the case of waste of duty paid filament yarn arising in the manufacture of texturised yam or defective textured yarn. The same is also not known in trade or common parlance as damaged textured yarn or waste of texturised yarn, it is only a waste of duty paid filament yarn and is as such wholly exempt from duty in terms of Notification No. 239/83. Approving the classification list directing the payment of duty @ Rs. 9/- per kg. as such waste was not tenable. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside with directions for classi...

Kerala Soaps and Oils Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT340TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector, Central Excise, Cochin No. 46/88, dated 10-8-1988.2. The appellants were issued a notice on 24-8-1994 for today's hearing. The notice has, however, come back undelivered.3. However, in view of the nature of the case before us we decided to hear the ld. DR and then decide whether there was a need for re-issue of the notice or the matter could be concluded even in the absence of the appellant.4. Ld. DR stated that the appellants are manufacturers of a vegetable product and had claimed exemption under Notification No. 115/86, dt.1-3-1986 with reference to the quantity cleared by them.5. It was, however, observed that they were adding 5% Til oil at the last stage of manufacture of vegetable product, i.e., after hardening.Therefore a question has arisen whether the benefit could be extended with reference to the entire quantity of Til oil was required to be excluded before extending the benefit.6. In this connection, we would draw attent...

Sita Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)51ITD591(Delhi)

1. These are penalty appeals pertaining to the provisions of Sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(a). Taking up for consideration the appeal pertaining to Section 271(1)(c) the relevant facts are that the assessee is a private limited company deriving income from the manufacture of carpets and durries and export of the same to the United States. In the return of income, the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,06,583 on account of commission to one Smt. Sushil Umrao Singh. Vide order sheet entry dated 14-11-1985, the assessee-company was requested to file a confirmation from the lady. Even subsequently, on 10-12-1985 and 16-12-1985, the same directions were given to the assessee but there was no compliance and finally on 6-1-1986, the assessee's counsel was asked either to file confirmation or surrender the amount of commission for taxation by filing a revised return or in the alternative to produce the lady for cross-examination. The assessee expressed its inability to produce the lady...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ithad Motor Transport P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1995]213ITR439(Delhi)

Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. These two reference in respect of the assessment years 165-66 and 1967-68 require this court of answer the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that on the basis of the compromise order passed by the High Court, the income of the K Group and V Group did not accrue to the assessed-company but to those two groups separately and thereforee assessments must be made on those two groups and not in the hands of the assessed-company ?' 2. Messrs. Ithad Motor Transport Pvt. Ltd. is a transport company. There was an internal dispute between the two sets of shareholders. The matter came up before the high Court under the company law. In the course of the proceedings, the court directed as to how the affairs of the company shall be managed as an interim measure. This was the result of a settlement between the two groups. The court made the order that the arrangement for the managemen...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sh. Thakur Dass

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1995]213ITR205(Delhi)

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1968-69, the following question has been referred under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our consideration : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 13,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) was applicable in the instant case particularly when the return of income was filed after insertion of the Explanationn to section 271(1) which came into force on April 1, 1961 ?' 2. Instead of narrating the facts, the relevant part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal could be read : 'The assessed is an individual and the assessment relates to the assessment year 1963-64, the relevant previous year of which ende...

S.R.F. Finance Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1994)221CTR(Del)431; ILR1998Delhi247; [1995]211ITR861(Delhi)

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner seeks the quashing of two Circulars Nos. 666 (see [1993] 204 ITR 40) and 681 (see [1994] 206 ITR 299 dated October 8, 1993, and March 8, 1994, respectively, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('C. B. D. T.' or 'the Board' for short). The other reliefs are consequential to this main relief. The petitioner is a finance company engaged in the business of leasing, hire purchase of articles such as vehicles, plant and machinery, etc. For the purpose of financing its business, the petitioner gets fixed deposits from the public. These fixed deposits are secured through various brokers who are paid brokerage at particular rates depending upon the scheme and duration of the deposits. The impugned circulars purport to explain the scope of section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and direct the authorities under the Act to give effect to the provisions of section 194C as against the commission agents, brokers, lawyers, chartered accountants and...

Kamal Pushp Enterprises Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, Gas Author ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)355; 56(1994)DLT259; 1994(31)DRJ651; 1995RLR56

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is a petition under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking filing of an arbitration' agreement and appointment of an arbitrator. The petition is accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 41(b) and Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act seeking an injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from enforcing a bank guarantee issued by the defendant No.3, a bank and furnished by the plaintiff to the defendants No. 1 and 2 in connection with performance of the contract. (2) The petition was filed on 24.9.94. It came up for hearing on 25.9.94. At the preliminary hearing it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that copy of the agreement containing the arbitration clause was not filed with the petition 'and the petition also did not reproduce the arbitration clause on which it was founded. The court also indicated to the counsel that there was a doubt about the competence of this Co...

John Oakey and Mohan Ltd. Vs. Million Abrasives Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(31)DRJ192

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 109 (2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,1958, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.3.1994 : AIR1994Delhi288 confirming the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks (2nd respondent) dated 3.12.1992 and rejecting the opposition of the appellant for the registration of the trade mark of the 1st respondent. 2. On 26.12.1981 the 1st respondent filed application under Section 18(1) for registration of trade mark consisting of the word 'Million', 'numerals 1000000', device of 'globe' (in fact elliptical) and other placements thereon in respect of emery paper, flint paper (abrasive paper) included in Class 3. Thereafter, the same was advertised for registration in Part B Register, subject to 'disclaimer' under Section 18(4) of numeral 1000000 and device of the (elliptical) globe, in Trade Mark Journal No. 963 dated 16.7.1989. It may be noticed that under Section 18(4), the Registrar ...