Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments

Ram Singh Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 62(1996)DLT265; (1996)113PLR40

N.G. Nandi, J. (1) By this petition, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner prays for filing of the agreement containing the arbitration clause and also the reference of disputes detailed in para 11 of the petition in terms of Clause 25 of the Arbitration Act for adjudication to the arbitration. (2) The say of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s. R.S. Electricals and has been executing various types of electrical works with (he respondents and other Government departments; that the agreement bearing No. 5/EE(E)/PWD-II/86-87 came to be executed between the petitioner and the respondents for construction of 500 beds Ddu Hospital at Hari Nagar, New Delhi SH: providing E.I. and Fans in six storeyed block; that immediately after the award of the work, pursuant to the aforestated agreement, the petitioner made ail necessary arrangements and the work commenced; that the work has also been completed on 28.11 .92; that the respondents failed to d...

Shanti Devi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts averred in the complaint are that Smt. Shanti Devi (complainant in short) has been residing in her house at Swatantra Nagar, Narela and has electric connection No. 1222728 DL of 25 KW. On 21.11.91 there was sparking as a result of which the meter got burnt. The person on duty was orally informed and he promised to take further action in the matter. However, the meter was not replaced. The complainant sent a request in writing for replacement of the meter on 4.12.91. The complaint was acknowledged by the opposite party but no action was taken. The complainant got served legal notice on 13.1.92. Without taking any further action for replacement of the meter, the burnt meter was taken away by officials of the opposite party in February, 92 and a bill dated 19.2.92 for Rs. 1,20,520.45 was served on the complainant for the period 26.11.88 to 26.11.91 to be paid upto 27.1.92. The present complaint was instituted on 30.3.92 and the complainant has pray...

Collector of Customs Vs. Tata Export Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT279TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order dated 31-5-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.The dispute is in respect of Gate valves imported by the respondents.Whether Gate Valves made out of alloy steel is classifiable under Heading 84.61(1) of the Customs Tariff as claimed by the Department or under Heading 84.61(2) as per the assessee. The respondents M/s. Tata Export Ltd. had imported a consignment of Alloy Steel Gate Valves (C-5) 12" 300 lbs. and Alloy Steel Gate Valves (C-5) 18" 300 lbs. which was assessed to duty under Item No. 84.61(2) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 1898 dated 6-3-1984. According to the Department, the said valves imported not being Isolating Valves, the same merited classification under Item 84.61(1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 instead of 84.61(2) already applied. Accordingly demand-cum-show cause notice for short levy was issued and the same was confirmed by the Asstt. Collector as pe...

U.S. Magnets (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT329TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14-6-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Customs House, Bombay. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported a consignment of 100% polyester lining and inter-lining material. They sought clearance against REP Licence issued under Export-Product Group 0-1 valid for import of lining and interlining material excluding nylon, taffeta and coated fabrics. The goods were examined by the Customs and further investigations were taken up as there was receipt of intelligence by the Customs of misdeclaration as regards the value and description of the material imported. Investigation revealed that the fabrics imported are sold or offered for sale as suitings in the trade circuit. They are not lining or interlining material as declared in the import documents. Show cause notice was issued and proceedings initiated against the appellants for confiscation of the goods for unauthorised import as well as for enhance...

Preet Chattons Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC767Tri(Delhi)

1. All these appeals have been filed against the various orders of Collector of Customs, Bombay [involving] a common factual background.The appellants herein imported various consignments of metallic chains and brass fittings which were declared in the Bill of Entry as embellishments for use in the leather industries and the clearance of these consignments [was] allowed by the Customs House, Goa allowing the exemption under Notification No. 224/85. This notification exempted goods specified in the Table thereto when imported into India for use in leather industries from the whole of the additional duty of customs also granted exemption at the rate of 40% ad valorem on basic customs duty. Serial No. 10 of the Table to the notification described the specified goods as "Metallic embellishment other than zip fasteners".In all these cases subsequent to the clearance of the goods notices were issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of the duty short levied on the groun...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sanwal Dass Miri Mal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]220ITR16(Delhi)

Y.K. Sabaharwal, J.1. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1969-70, the Income-tax Officer examined the stock register produced by the assessed and found that there was discrepancy of 1,000 kgs. of aluminium. It was found that as on June 21, 1968, the quantity of aluminium in stock was shown at 3,147 kgs. as against the correct quantity of 4,147 kgs. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessed had sold 1,000 kgs. of aluminium outside the books of account and made an addition of Rs. 21,200 towards the total income of the assessee. The order of assessment was made on September 17, 1971. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the assessed and by his order dated March 19, 1974, imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. The assessed went in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the In...

Kasturi Devi Vs. Gurdev Raj Sethi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT778

Arun Kumar, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 9th April, 1979 fixing the standard rent of the premises in suit which is a shop at Rs. 30.00 per month. The agreed rent of the premises was Rs. 65.00 per month. The respondent tenant applied for fixing of standard rent. The Additional Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 12.50 per month with effect from 1st April. 1971. The land-lady challenged the said order of the Additional Controller before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal partly accepted the appeal and fixed the standard rent at Rs. 30.00 per month. The present petition by the land-lady is directed against the said judgment of the Tribunal. (2) According to the learned Counsel for the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the agreed rent should be the standard rent. In support of his submission, he has invited my attention to the finding of the Tribunal that standard rent of the premises in...

Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]222ITR307(Delhi)

M.K. Sharma, J.1. In this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called, 'the Act'), relevant to the assessment year 1987-88, the assessed seeks to refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,83,793 incurred for putting up stall at the exhibition organized in connection with the Congress Centenary Celebration at Jaipur, falls under Section 37(2B) of the Act and was as such not an allowable business expenditure ?'2. The assessed filed a return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 1,31,55,490. The assessed in his return of income claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,83,792, alleged to have been incurred by it in putting up a stall at the exhibition organized in connection with the Congress Centenary Celebration at Jaipur claiming the same to be a business...

SuraIn Singh Vs. Tuisi Ram Araun

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ551

Arun Kumar, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal passing an eviction order against the appellant under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the Act). Both the courts below have declined to give benefits of section 14(2) of the Act to the appellant tenant.(2) The grievance of the appellant is that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Murti vs . Bhola Nath, : AIR1984SC1392 the appellant is entitled to the benefits of section 14(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant has not really challenged the decision of the Rent Control Authorities on the question of passing an eviction order under section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The only point raised before this court is about denial of benefits of section 14(2) of the Act by the authorities below.(3) In order to appreciate the controversy involve...

Rewa Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT290TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 45-CE/IND/91, dated 8-7-1991.2. The issue that falls for determination in this appeal is the treatment to be meted out to the credit balance lying in [RG-23A] Part II at the time when the appellants opted out of MODVAT Scheme and whether during the intervening period before they again opted for MODVAT Scheme, the appellants could have taken Modvat Credits and made from their [RG-23A].3. The facts in brief are that the appellants have been availing MODVAT Credit but are alleged to have opted out of Modvat Scheme from 9-10-1989 vide their letter dated 9-10-1989. It is alleged that balance of modvat credit of Rs. 14,215.97 and special duty of Rs. 1406.87 in the [RG-23A] Part-II should have lapsed. The appellants, however, on their own accord again again modvat credit of basic duty of Rs. 7200.00 and special duty of Rs. 360.00 in their RG-23A Part II vide entry No.163 and 164 dated 13-10-1989. The Appellants, when they came to know of...