Delhi Court February 1995 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.
R.M.D.C. Press Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(77)ELT851(Del)
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This batch of writ petitions was listed before us on 31 January, 1995 for directions as it was represented that the issue raised in these petitions, viz., as to whether printed cartons are product of printing industry and thereforee, exempt from duty of excise under the Central Excise Notification No. 55/75-C.E. as amended by Notifications No. 114/75-C.E. and 122/75-C.E. stood concluded, in favor of the revenue, by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rollatainers Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. : 1994(72)ELT793(SC) and, thereforee, in the light of the said judgment rule should be discharged. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, however, pointed out that although on merits the issue appeared to have been decided against the assessees in Rollatainers case, (supra) but the main issue raised in the petition, challenging the impugned orders, was that the impugned notices issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act) were barred b...
Madan Mohan Rajgarhia Vs. Mahendra R. Shah and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT121; 1995(32)DRJ517; 1995RLR250
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Shri Madan Mohan Rajgarhia, has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.5,63,334.00 against M/s Mahendra R.Shah &: Bros. & Ors. Suit is based on the ground that he utilised the services of the defendant for sale and purchase of shares, debentures, etc. of various companies. The parties were maintaining statement of accounts and as per the sale and purchase of shares/ debentures etc. debit/credit entries were made. Statement of accounts were existing between the parties as per final accounts after giving due credit to amounts due from one to the other. A sum of Rs.4,14,582.10 Paise was found due from the defendant. Basing his claim on these facts the suit has been filed by the plaintiff.(2) Summons in the suit were issued in response to which, the defendant instead of filing the written statement has filed present application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act (in short the Act). The main plea of the defendant is that the suit at Delhi is not maintainable, it i...
Namza Nozogh Vs. B.R. Nanda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT437
Mohd. Sharnim, J.(1) Since a very short point is involved I proceed to hear and decide this matter.(2) This revision petition is directed against an order dated 23/07/1994 passed by the learned Additional cession Judge.(3) The only point involved in the present revision petition is as to whether the learned Additional Session Judge was competent to direct the petitioner tounder go Rl for a period of 2 years 5 months and 3 weeks in default of payment of fine which was Rs.12,50,000.00 imposed on the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Jitender Sethi has contended that the Court is no competent to direct an accused to undergo more than I /4th of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence committed by a particular accused.According to the learned Counsel, in the instant case the petitioner could not have been punished with an imprisonment for more than 7 years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, for the reasons best known to him, directed...
Rajinder Prasad @ Pappu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ287; 1995(3)Crimes15; 59(1995)DLT141; 1995(32)DRJ702
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C:'). According to Shri Jagat Rana, learned counsel for- petitioner, the alleged recovery of opium was effected from accused on, 6.6.1990 out of which 200-gms was sent to C.F.S.L. On 24.8.1990 a report , was received from C.F.S.L. and challan was filed on 6.11.1990, although the date on the report of C.F.S.L. is 24.8.1990. Mr.Rana has contended on the basis of the report that no case has been made out against the accused under the provisions of Ndps Act and keeping that factor in view, the High Court granted bail on 7.11.1990. (2) According to the petitioner, controversy has arisen as the prosecution after coming to know the insufficiency in their case moved an application after two years before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on 31.8.1992 for drawing the second sample from the case property. On 7.9.1992 learned Asj allowed the application and ordered that the second ...
Nawroz Salam Vs. Sukanya Roy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT1
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for quashing and setting aside the order dated 9th January, 1995 passed bed by the learned Additional District Judge.(2) A petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent was filed under Sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act, and was disposed of by order dated 4/09/1991. The learned Additional District Judge granted divorce by mutual consent to the parties. The parties to the above petition have settled all their disputes and claims on certain terms.(3) It has also been agreed between the parties that the minor child Ishan Roy Salam shall remain under the care and custody Dr. Ms. Sukanya Roy (respondent in this petition). It was agreed between the parties that the petitioner No.1 shall have the right to visit and take the minor child with him twice a month on alternateSaturdays.(4) It was agreed that the minor child would accompany the father o...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hemali Cosmetics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT434TriDel
1. This is a Department's appeal filed against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 29-6-1988.2. Ld. D.R. stated that the respondents M/s. Hemali Cosmetics are manufacturers of cosmetics and toilet preparations including Tiara brand shampoo. It was the Department's case that the Tiara brand was lent to them by M/s J.K. Helene Curtis Ltd., the owner of this brand and the respondents were not independent manufacturer and were manufacturing the goods on behalf of J.K. Helene Curtis who were not entitled to the benefit of the notification and therefore the respondents themselves were not entitled to the exemption availed of by them under Notification No. 140/83, dated 5-5-1983. Hence, they are liable to pay duty for the period December, 1983 to March, 1984 as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 16-7-1984 under Section 11A and were also liable to penalty under Rule l73Q.3. The Assistant Collector had dropped the demand treating the respondents as independent manufacturers an...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shankar Cement Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT362TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 26-4-1994.2. It was observed that this order-in-appeal covers two orders-in-original namely Order Nos. 143/93 and 144/93. However, the department had filed only one appeal and therefore, after we had heard the matter for some time a question arose as to which order-in-original was required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of this appeal.3. Ld. D.R. clarified that in this matter two show cause notices were issued, one dated 1-7-1992 which is a demand-cum-show cause notice and another dated 5-11-1992; and the demand of Rs. 5,97,966/- has been raised in the notice dated 1-7-1992 and in the Grounds of Appeal, the Collector has referred to this amount and to the Notification No. 24/91 alone and therefore, at this stage when the matter has been heard for quite some time, he will opt for consideration of this demand notice and consequential adjudication Order No. 144/93 which...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Naga Detergent Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT100TriDel
1. These two appeals arise against two orders of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchi dated 28-10-1992 and 3-8-1993. The latter order merely follows the former order of the Collector (Appeals) on merits. The facts in brief are as follows: 2. M/s. Naga Detergent Products (P) Ltd., Dindigul (M/s. Naga) (hereinafter called the respondents) were engaged under an agreement with M/s. Tata Oil Mills Co. (TOMCO) for the manufacture and supply of detergent cakes under the brand name "Super 501". The appellants* manufactured detergent cakes according to the formulations, specifications and quality furnished by M/s. TOMCO.The despatch programme was also given by M/s. TOMCO. Raw-materials were purchased by the respondents in accordance with the specifications and quality prescribed by M/s. TOMCO. Samples were drawn by M/s. TOMCO and analysed in their labs and the products were accepted by M/s. TOMCO only after they were cleared by the quality control Deptt. of TOMCO.Th...
Matura Property Dealer Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: (1995)53ITD187(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Faridabad, who partly confirmed the penalty levied Under Section 271(1)(c).2. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return declaring income of Rs. 25,000. The AO completed the asst. at the income of Rs. 1,79,950. The additions made included the addition of cash credit amounting to Rs. 1,54,702. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) upheld the addition of cash credit to the tune of Rs. 1,53,702 and allowed the relief of only Rs. 1,000. Against the sustained addition the assessee had moved the appeal to the ITAT which by its order dated 20th Feb., 1989 upheld the addition to the tune of Rs. 23,000 only in respect of the following credits : 3. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) for addition of cash credit of Rs. 1,54,702. He being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee levied penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,05,580 vide his order dated ...
Abdul Majeeb Abdul Wajid Vs. Gulfam Exporters and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT146
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This appeal arises out of an order dated 16.11.1993 passed by the Copyright Board directing for expunging of Entry No. A. 51185/91 in the Register of Copyright granted in favor of the appellant. The Copyright Board directed expunging of the aforesaid entry of copyright on the ground that the appellant had not in law become the owner of the copyright in the manner contemplated by the provisions of the Copyright Act.(2) The aforesaid impugned order was passed by the Copyright Board on the basis of a petition filed by M/s. Gulfarn Exporters of Lucknow, respondent No. I herein, praying for expunging of Entry No. 51185 /91 in the register of Copyright of the artistic work of Two Hukkas registered in the name of the appellant herein. The main grounds urged in the said petition for rectification are that work was not Urdu but Arabic and that the Certificate issued by the Trade Marks Office under Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act was contrary to Sections 9 and 11 of the Tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »