Delhi Court March 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.
Sudir Engineering Company Vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)189; 1995(34)DRJ86; 1995RLR286
C. Lahoti, J.(1) What appears prima facie to be an insignificant and inconsequential aspect of judicial proceedings has however assumed significance in my view as it is a matter of y-to-day recurrence witnessed,by me sitting on the Original Side. Can a document marked as an exhibit only when it has been proved? Does mere endorsing of an exit number on the document taunt amounts to expression of judicial opinion on its oof?(2) Before me, the plaintiff is standing in the witness box. His pleaded case is that he had delivered certain documents to a transporter in the presence of Notary Public and the Notary Public had made a report of the proceedings which had taken place in his presence. The plaintiff has in his deposition referred to the report of the Notary Public. Before the Court Master could endorse an exhibit number on the report of the Notary Public, counsel for the defendants has sprung up to raise an objection on the document being so endorsed staling - 'the document has not yet...
Evelyn J. Disney Vs. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT622; 1995(33)DRJ98; 1995RLR361
D.K. Jain, J.(1) This is defendant No.7's appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6 May 1994, dismissing her application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of written statement filed on her behalf on 15 November 1988 in Suit No.662/1988. (2) The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, in brief, narrated the progress in the suit proceedings from the beginning till the filing of the application for amendment and observed that it was manifest there from that the application was moved after five years of the institution of the suit and after the conclusion of arguments by counsel for the contesting parties and after filing of written arguments by the plaintiff and defendant No.7. The Court thus, felt that the application for amendment was highly belated and had been moved with a view to delaying the disposal of the case. The application for amendment was thus dismissed in liming. The dismissal...
S.S. Tyagi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2872; 1995(33)DRJ155
Vijender Jain, J.(1) The short question involved in this case is whether the order of the learned Special Judge dated 23.3.1994 and framing of charge dated 8.8.1994 can be sustained in the eyes of law. Mr.Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent-CBI filed a charge-sheet under Section 120B read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, I.K.Sharma Ias, L.K.Joshi Ias, D.P.Bahuguna and Prakash Chand Gupta. (2) It is the case of the petitioner that as per the impugned order, the petitioner was appointed as 'Tehsildar' under Section 4(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ' Act') and as such sanction of his prosecution was to be given by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Authority') and not by the Chairman of the Authority. Mr.Talwar has contended that Chairman at the first instance is not the author...
Kanta Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: 1995RLR426
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) The main prayer of the petitioners is that a Writ be issued for quashing Fir No. 396/94 dated 18th of May, 1994 u/Ss. 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code registered against them at P.S. Mangolpuri. (2) The two petitioners arc Mrs. Kanta Gupta and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, the mother-in-law and husband respectively of Ms. Manisha Gupta & Anshu respondent 5 at whose instance the impugned Fir was registered. (3) The scope of interference in a case of this nature has been clearly delineated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of W.B. vs . Mohd. Khalid : AIR1995SC785 The relevant portion, which lays down the parameters, is succinctly stated in para 49, '...WHEREthe allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in the entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then alone the proceedings could be quashed.'(4) In the Fir respdt 5 has stated that she is resid...
C.C.E. and Customs Vs. Agarshakti Paper Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC72Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of paper and Paper Boards falling under Tariff Item 17 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, availed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 128/77, dated 18-6-1977 at the rate of 75% of the duty leviable, declaring their installed capacity as not exceeding 2000 MT per year. The Classification lists claiming this exemption were duly approved by the Proper Officer. The Range Superintendent found that the unit had produced 165.389 MT during February, 1981 for the year 1980-81. Similarly, it was found that the unit had produced 180.126 Mt.during August 1981 for the year 1981-82 and 281.651 MT during August 1982 for the year 1982-83. Calculating the installed capacity on the basis of the above production, it was found that the production had exceeded 2000 MT per annum and hence a show cause notice for recovery of differential duty of Rs. 13,75,764.67 P. covering a period August 1982 to March 1983 was is...
Jyoti Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT159TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay and rejected their claim for classifying the imported components for Solar energy equipment under Heading 84.17(1) of Customs Tariff for customs duty. However, he has allowed the claim for classification under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of CVD and has also hold it to be exempted under Notification No.120/81-C.E. as amended. The classification which had been adopted for Customs Duty by the Asstt. Collector was under Heading 84 of CTA.However, while rejecting the importer's appeal, the ld. Collector has also set aside the department's original assessment under Heading 84.17 of CET and has assessed the goods under the residuary Heading 84.65 of the Customs Tariff. The Revenue is also aggrieved with the Collector's order and seeking the restoration of order in original. The Revenue in their appeal have submitted that the leaflet produced by the importers reads "Vulcan Solar Colle...
Kasturi Foods and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT169TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 31-8-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The appellants filed a classification list declaring Pharma Yeast as medicament classifiable under Tariff Heading 3003.30. The said classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector. The order passed by the Assistant Collector approving the classification of Pharma Yeast under Tariff Heading 3003.30 was challenged by the department in appeal before the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) who by the impugned order held that Pharma Yeast BPC 73 which being dry yeast was nothing but inactive yeast meant for Vitamin 'B' for home consumption and not for treatment of ailments as per definition of P or P medicine. He, therefore, confirmed the classification of Pharma Yeast tinder Tariff Heading 2101.10.2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), the appellants have filed the present appeal claiming that Pharmaceutical Dry Yeast is classifiable un...
Kelvinator of India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD251(Delhi)
[Paras (1) to (8) are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 9. The next ground of appeal i. e., ground Nos. 4. 1 and 4. 2 is against the upholding of the disallowance at Rs. 1, 75, 000 under Section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act.9.1 At the time of hearing before us it is submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the rent paid for the guest house. He submitted that Section 37(4) starts with he non obslante clause and states "notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (3)". Therefore, Section 37(4) overrides the provision of Sections 37(1) and 37(3) only. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 37(4) will be made in respect of the expenditure allowable under Section 37(1) or 37(3) only. He submitted that the rent is allowable under Section 30 and, therefore, the same cannot be disallowed under Section 37(4). In this respect, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No....
Arphi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi388; 58(1995)DLT181; 1995(33)DRJ486
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) By the present writ petition the petitioners are challenging the illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the first respondent in not making proper and wide publicity of and posting to them the tender notice issued by the Ministry of Welfare inviting tenders from manufacturers/companies of hearing aids for purchase by voluntary organizations/registered societies etc. under the Government of India scheme of assistance to disabled persons for purchase/lifting of aids/appliances. The said tender notice was issued on 2.9.1994 with the information that the tenders should reach the office by 12.00 noon of 10.10.1994. (2) Briefly stated, the facts of the present writ petition are that the first petitioner are in the business of manufacturing hearing aids for the last about 40 years and are pioneers in the said industry and is the holder of 70% of the market share for the said product. Under the scheme of assistance to disabled persons, the Ministry of Welfare purchases f...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Taj Forgings and Stampings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT168TriDel
1. These appeals are by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. The facts in brief are that the respondents had availed of Modvat credit on bars and rods which are classifiable under sub-heading 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff and in one case under sub-heading 7228.30. The Department's contention was that since, in the declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the tariff classification of the inputs, rounds and bars have been shown to 7215.90, it cannot be said that the inputs have been declared. The Assistant Collector of Cenral Excise, therefore, disallowed the appeal.In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) had held that since the physical inputs of the description have been given, failure to mention the correct tariff sub-heading should not debar the appellants fromavailing of the Modvat. She, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the Assistant Collector's order. The pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »