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.
The Managing Committee, Qabristan Punj Peeran NizamuddIn Vs. Delhi Wak ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi103
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This petition under article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner, a Managing Committee of Qabristan Punj Peeran, which committee was constituted by the Chairman of the Delhi Wakf Board ('the Board' for short) under the authority conferred upon him by Resolution No.7 dated 14 November 1993 of the Board. Twelve members constitute the petitioner committee. The petitioner prays for writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the notice dated-15 November 1994 issued by the Board and for a declaration that the contract entered into between the Board and Saaz Advertising Company, Okhla, New Delhi, is null and void. Further prayer is for directing the Board to act in accordance with law and not to encroach upon the power and functions of the petitioner including the right of the petitioner to collect charges/rent from the advertising companies whose holdings arc installed on the premises of the QabristanPunj Pee...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Amit Alloys Strips Private Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: I(1996)BC190; 58(1995)DLT138
J.K. Mehra, J. 1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff wherein it has submitted that on account of an accidental slip and/or omission, the interestpendente life has not been awarded though future interest has been awarded by the Court. Notice of the application was given to the judgment-debtors and defendants/judgment-debtors Nos. 2, 3 and 5 filed a reply contesting the application whereas Counsel for judgment-debtor No. 1 stated that in case the Court is of the view that thee was an omission, the same may be supplied and judgment corrected.2. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff/decree-holder for the recovery of the money advanced by, inter alia, enforcing the mortgage. The transaction between the plain tiff/decree-holder Bank and the respondents/defend ants could not be described as nothing other than commercial transaction and in such cases the Court has discretion to award interest even in excess of 6% up to contractual rate and in case no contractual rate is fixed ...
Glaxo (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC242Tri(Delhi)
1. The point to be considered in this case is whether supply of plastic shaker and spoon alongwith packets of Mango Complan and Glucon-D by the appellants to the consumers amounts to a trade discount qualifying for deduction in determining the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of food products i.e.Mango Complan and Glucon-D. They filed a price list claiming deduction of the cost of one shaker (mug) worth Rs. 4.20 and cost of one spoon of Rs. 0.75 as free gift to their customers. According to the Department the abatement of price on account of cost of shaker (mug) and spoon was not admissible under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.Show cause notice was issued raising the demand of Rs. 14,288.10 and same was confirmed by the Assistant Collector disallowing the deduction of cost of shaker and cost of spoon supplied by the appellants as free gift. The appellants have become unsucce...
Union Technology International Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)(81)ELT671TriDel
1. These are applications for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty demand Rs. 2,89,427/- and Rs. 6,279/-. The learned Counsel for the applicants Shri Rajesh Chhibber submitted that the demand has been raised holding that the second unit of the applicants manufacturer of cranes and sub-assembly is not eligible for the Small Scale Industries exemption Notification No. 175/86 because the second unit was not registered with the Development Commissioner for Small Scale Industries. The learned Counsel submitted that the first unit is duly registered but the Department is denying the exemption on the grounds that the second unit where they carried out certain operation, is a separate unit and should be in possession of separate SSI Certificate.Shri Chhibber, the learned Counsel submitted that the Department at the same time has approved all the classification lists 1987-88 granting the exemption on the basis of their declaration in the classification list wherein they have correctly broug...
Rajender Kumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)53ITD130(Delhi)
1. These cross appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue, for the assessment year 1987-88 are directed against order of CIT (A), Mazaffarnagar dated December 17, 1991. Both the appeals were heard together for the sake of convenience. We shall first take appeal filed by the Revenue wherein the following grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 5,66,556 (being the value of silver coins for Rs. 1,58,373 value of Kara, Hansuli of Rs. 1,43,380 value of silver ornaments of Rs. 2,14,171 silver utensils of Rs. 16,050) by observing that the silver coins, gold ornaments, etc. have been received by way of Will of Smt. Magan Wati since the Will has never been found during the course of search nor. the same has been produced in the course of assessment proceedings. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,000 being investment in gold ornaments & o...
Lehri and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1277; 1995(32)DRJ700
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, enhancing the amount of compensation on a reference made to him under section 18 of the Act. The land in question is that of village Peepalthala. (2) A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 13 November 1959 and declaration under section 6 on 22 November 1962. The award by the Collector was made on 22 April 1963. He fixed the market value of the land for various khasras which was enhanced by the Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment. This is how the compensation was enhanced :- 1.Khasra No. 241 from Rs.1000.00 to Rs. 2000.00 per bigha. 2. Khasra Nos. 184, 185, 631/150, 633/150, from RS. 1000.00 to Rs. 1500/: per bigha. 3. Khasra Nos. 205 and 206 from Rs. 1500.00 to Rs. 2250.00 per bigha. 4. Khasra number 436/200 from Rs. 1500.00 to Rs. 3000.00 per bigha. 5. Khasra No. 433-34/199/2/2 from RS.1OOO.00 to Rs.3000....
J.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1113; 1995(33)DRJ348
Vijender Jain, J.(1) The detention order was served on the petitioner on 12.5.94 passed by Shri Mahendera Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated 2.5.1994. This was served on the petitioner who was in judicial custody in pursuant to Kalandara under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and also under judicial custody under criminal complaint titled 'Enforcement v. J.P.Gupta' under Sec. 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (for short `FERA'). (2) The detenu was served with the grounds of detention on 5.5.94 along with huge bunches of documents running into 1760 pages. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the arrest of two persons and recovery of amount of Rs.50 lacs, the office and residential premises of the detenu were searched by the Enforcement Officials but nothing incriminating was found there from. A complaint was filed under Sec. 56 of Fera on 29.10.93 when the petitioner...
Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ545
Vijender Jain, J. (1) The petitioner was served with the preventive detention order under Section 3(1) of the Consideration of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to''COFEPOSA') passed by the respondent on 2.5.1994 on the same day while he was in judicial custody. He was also served with the grounds of detention and list of relied upon documents in pages running into 1780 pages on 5.5.1994.(2) Mr. Trilok Kumar, Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was placed under arrest on 7.4.1994 and was remanded to judicial custody on 8.4.1994 and the detention order was served upon him on 2.5.1994 while he was in judicial custody and has challenged that there was no material before the detaining authority when the detenu was already in judicial custody to arrive at subjective satisfaction that nothing prevents him to avail remedies available to him under the law for getting himself released from the judicial custody. ...
Swastic Rubber Products Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT60; 1995LC31(Delhi)
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. There are two writ petitioners, the first petitioner M/s. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd., is a Public Limited Company, second petitioner is a Secretary of the first petitioner and the shareholder. There are three respondents, first is the Union of India, second is the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay, and the third respondent is Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The first petitioner is having its registered office at Kirkee, Poona, in the State of Maharashtra. It is engaged in the business of manufacturers and dealers in all kinds of rubber, synthetic fabrics etc. In or about the 5th of August 1969 the first petitioner imported a product called Viton B for the purpose of manufacture of various items or products of synthetic rubber from M/s. Du Pont Nemours International SA. At the time of the import, the Collector of Customs levied duty under tariff item 87 which read on that date:Allother articles anyRevenue 60%otherwisespecified.advalorem.According to th...
Delhi Belting Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC373Tri(Delhi)
1. Shri D.N. Mehta, learned Advocate is present on behalf of the appellants. On the Bench pointing out that the Advocate whose vakalatnama is on record is Shri D.D. Verma, Shri Mehta stated that Shri Verma is no more and the appellants have given him the authority to appear on their behalf. The vakalatnama has been produced by him accordingly. We accept the above position and proceed to hear Shri Mehta in the matter.2. Shri Mehta stated that the refund claim filed by the appellants had been dismissed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, MOD IV, New Delhi on the ground that their claim was time barred. He had also rejected the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. Shri Mehta contended that the latter ground was never communicated to them in a show cause notice and thereby they had lost the opportunity of making their submission in that regard. Further as the law stood at the material time there was no provision to deny refunds on this ground.Reverting to the first ground, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »