Delhi Court September 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 5 of about 124 results (0.027 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. O.M.C. Computer
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT343TriDel
1. By the present application, the revenue has made a prayer for the stay of the impugned order. The matter had come up for hearing on 2-8-1994 and the Bench had pointed out that the appeal was defective and the stay application was also defective as it was not supported with an affidavit. Shri K.K. Jha, learned SDR, who has appeared on behalf of the applicant stated that the defect has been rectified and the application has been supported with an affidavit. The Bench had shown the so-called affidavit filed by Shri K.N. Pillai, Assistant Collector who is from Indian Revenue Service, and it, cannot be assumed that he is having ignorance/innocence of law. The affidavit filed by the Assistant Collector is re-produced below :- I, K.N. Pillai, Assistant Collector of Central Excise,.Hyderabad. VIII Division, Hyderabad Collectorate, Hyderabad do hereby take oath and state as follows on solemn affirmation. 1. that, I have been authorised by the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad to file a...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)51ITD447(Delhi)
1. 1 to 34 [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 35. We now come to the various grounds raised by the assessee with reference to the computation of "book profit" under Section 115J. It would not be out of context to state that these grounds were vehemently argued by both the sides with reference to the relevant provisions of law, the facts on record and the decision cited at the bar by both of them.36. The first issue pertains to the deduction on account of depreciation in working out the book profit. The assessee-company determined the book profit at a loss of Rs. 6,11,56,136 by charging depreciation of Rs. 46,42,18,709 which had been worked out under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act. The books of accounts however, revealed a profit of Rs. 34,00,83,889 after depreciation had been deducted in accordance with the "straight-line method". To appreciate the controversy in better perspective, it would be necessary to reproduce the following figures appearing i...
Tag this Judgment!Arihant Auto Accessories Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC349Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original dt. 4-1-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras.2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellants imported bulbs for Automobile Lamps. They have filed a bill of entry for the clearance of 15 Cartons containing 30,000 pcs of bulbs for Automobile Lamps. The value of the consignment was declared as Rs. 64,289/- based on the invoice raised by M/s. Subh Traders, Singapore. Since the Department was not satisfied with the declared value the case was taken up for investigation for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the declared value. On examination the goods were found to be 'Halogen Auto Lamps' 12V-55W(H3 Model) and of W-Phoenix Brand of Japanese origin and the manufacturer's name was found to be M/s. Phoenix Electronics Company Ltd., Japan. Since the goods were found to be 'Phoenix Brand' of Japanese origin, a direct telex enquiry was made with the manufacturers and they confirmed the prices for...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT268TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed by the appellants with reference to the order of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda dated 23-2-1991.2. The Stay Application was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order No.143/93-C rejecting their request for pre-deposit of the disputed amount.3. A miscellaneous application for modification of this order was also rejected by the Tribunal vide its Order No. 21/94-C, dated 31st January, 1994.4. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants had moved the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of this Stay Application and the aforesaid orders passed by the Tribunal and their writ petition has since been allowed by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated May 18th, 1994 (in CWE No. 1238/94) with the observation that the matter is sent back to CEGAT for a fresh disposal of the Stay Application and leaving it open to the CEGAT to dispose of the main appeal itself.5. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court contained in operative portion of its ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. A.A. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Lifeline Medicare Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi106
Usha Mehra, J.1. M/s. A.A. Construction (P) Ltd., by this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, (hereinafter called the Act) has sought the appointment of an Arbitrator pursuance to the arbitration agreement executed with M/s. Lifeline Medicare Ltd. (respondent herein). It is the case of the petitioner that work was awarded by the respondent for construction of a factory at 945-946, Village Khandsa, Behrampur, District Gurgaon, Haryana. The Arbitration Agreement was executed on 31st January, 1992. Period of completion stipulated therein was six months. however, according to petitioner from the very beginning the respondent created hindrances in the smooth and timely execution and completion of the work. Neither timely drawings nor instructions were provided, even the payments were not made in time. With the result there was prolongation of the execution of the work causing loss to the petitioner. The Managing Director of the respondent assured the petitioner that the amount...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)7; 1995CriLJ392; 56(1994)DLT56
ORDER1. This petition has been directed against the order dated 13th December, 1993 issued under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi. 2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under : On 5th August, 1993, the petitioner arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Madras as a domestic passenger by a flight No. AI-105. The petitioner was intercepted by the custom officer at the exit gate of the Customs Arrival Hall. Nothing incriminating was found from the baggage of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, a metal detector was applied on the petitioner's body in the presence of two independent witnesses which indicated the presence of some metallic substance near the rectum portion. On sustained interrogation, the petitioner admitted having concealed three small packets containing cut-pieces of gold with foreign marking...
Tag this Judgment!Farman Ali Vs. Nct (State of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3288; 56(1994)DLT1; 1994(31)DRJ15
ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after a similar application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 3rd June, 1964. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judges rejected the ancipatory bail application because the petitioner is indulging in the business and smuggling of hypes and skins of wild animals. He has also mentioned in the order that two skins were recovered at the spot and the application of the co-accused has also been dismissed. 3. The Duty Officer, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi lodged a First Information Report on the basis of the secret information received by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police that a group of some persons is engaged in illegal selling of skin of wild animals and is also engaged in smuggling the same. This information was reduced into writing and the investigation was handed over to the Sub-Inspector Vinod Kapoor of Crime Branch, S...
Tag this Judgment!A.A. Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lifetome Medicare Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)425; 1995(1)ARBLR75(Delhi); 56(1994)DLT379
Usha Mehra, J. (1) M/S A. A. Construction (P) Ltd.. by this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, there inafter called the Act) has sought the appointment of an Arbitrator, pursuance to the arbitration agreement executed with M!s Lifeline: Medicare Ltd. (respondent herein). It is the case of the petitioner that work was awarded by the respondent for construction of a factory at 945-946, Village Khandsa, Behrampur, District 'Gurgaon, Haryana. The Arbitration Agreement was executed on 31st January, 1992. Period of completion stipulated therein was six months. However, according to petitioner from the very beginning the respondent created hinder in the smooth and timely execution and completion of the A work. Neither timely drawings nor instructions were provided, even the payments were not made in time. With the result there was prolongation of the execution of the work causing loss. to the petitioner. I he Managing Director to the respondent assured the petitioner that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Mohinder Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 56(1994)DLT568; 1994(31)DRJ10; ILR1995Delhi205
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) The petitioner has come to this Court impugning non-grant of promotion on the basis of the allegation that even though no charge heet had been served upon him, the Dpc has followed sealed cover procedure. It is stated that only a fact finding inquiry was in progress. Mr. Sharma has relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India etc. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman etc. : (1991)IILLJ570SC wherein it has been laid down that where the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is only in contemplation and no charge sheet has been served, sealed cover procedure cannot be adopted and the petitioner should not be deprived of the promotion. (2) In the present case, admittedly till date no charge sheet has been served and it was thereforee not correct to adopt the sealed cover procedure. (3) Mr. Shali has opposed the petition and has relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court Union of India and others v. K. Krishnan reported as 1992 Supp (3) ...
Tag this Judgment!indcon Polymech Ltd. Vs. Switching Technologies Gunther Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 56(1994)DLT31; 1994(31)DRJ12
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order disposes of I.A No. 7110/93, an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code and Order 39 Rule I Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendant. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,22,465.64 against the defendant. The defendant has preferred a counter claim to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs against the plaintiff. (2) It appears that the defendant had commissioned a gas plant under Idbi bills re-discounting claim on deferred payment. The payment was guaranteed by the defendant's bankers, that is, the State Bank of India (Overseas Branch, Madras) in ten installments totalling to Rs.19,50,400.00 Out of the ten installments, the defendant's bank had already paid six installments totalling to Rs. 12,88,600/. The remaining four installments was to fall due on 20.8.1993, 20.2.94, 20.8.94 and 20.2.95. The case of the defendant is that defective machinery was supplied by the plaintiff and so the Installments was liable to be adjusted against the claim...
Tag this Judgment!