Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 9 of about 169 results (0.020 seconds)Marnite Polycast Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)53ITD345(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 is directed against order of CIT(A) upholding interest income of Rs. 12,16,478 under the head "Income from other sources" against claim of the assessee to be assessed as business income and allow deduction of interest payable as expenditure.2. In the original Memorandum of appeal, the assessee had raised a general ground that CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing appeal of the assessee against order of ACIT, Co. Circle 2(5), New Delhi.Subsequently, vide letter dated November 10,1994 the assessee sought to raise a specific ground relating to assessability of interest income.Shri C.S. Aggarwal, learned counsel for assessee submitted that no new ground was being raised but assessee was only trying to clarify the ground earlier raised before the Tribunal. This submission was opposed by learned departmental representative. He submitted that assessee was trying to raise a new plea relating to business income and allowability of...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Nestor Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi260
ORDERDr. M. K. Sharma, J.1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of six writ applications as similar questions of facts and law are involved in all the six writ applications. The petitioners have filed the aforesaid six writ applications, challenging the impugned order/notification, issued by the Union of India through the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, by which the private respondents in the writ applications have been granted order for supply of different items as mentioned in the impugned notification. Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid sixapplications are that the respondent No. 1 invited tenders of offers for supply of drugs/ medicines in five groups. The said drugs were sought by the respondent No. 1 for the project of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for the purpose and object of providing quality and timely medicine to poor and needy persons so as to prevent and check mortality in the infants/small children. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Jaiswal and Others Vs. Jaiswal Packaging Private Limited and O ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3550; 58(1995)DLT125
ORDER1. The petitioner in the present case is the accused in criminal case, pending before Metropolitan Magistrate. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are as under :- That the accused and the complainant are related to each other as son and father respectively. The complainant, Shri Hans Raj Jaiswal, acting for an on behalf of Jaiswal Packaging Private Limited, had filed a complaint against Mr. Pradeep Jaiswal under Sections 380, 403 and 409 IPC read with Section 201 of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Shri M. L. Sahni, Metropolitan Magistrate (ase he then was). It is alleged in the complaint that the accused had removed important parts of the machinery from the factory such as Feeder of Dominical (0715) Offset Printing, Gauge of Polar Automatic Paper Cutting Machine, Belt and other parts of heidelberg machines etc. apart from books of account misappropriated funds. The complaint after being marked by the ACMM to Shri Akshay Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, who in turn referred the...
Tag this Judgment!D.C.M. Data System Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT226
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This writ petition filed by the petitioner is directed against the award of contract to the respondent No. 2 for supply of 40 Pc Ats 386DX with Ink Jet Printer to Modi Olivetti; also the contract awarded to respondent No. 3, Hcl for the supply of 140 Pc Ats 386 Dx with Dmp, and also contract awarded to respondent No. 4, Cmp for the supply of 150 Pc Ats 386SX with Dmp, a further prayer for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to award the contract to the petitioner on the quotedprices.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the present writ petition are that the petitioner fcomputersystemsexclusively deals with manufacturing and marketing of various range of computer systems from Micro Computers to Mini Computers. The petitioners have been recently awarded Isd 9002 Certification which is International Standard QualityCertification. The respondent No. 1 issued an invitation to the petitioner to participate in the tender by their letter da...
Tag this Judgment!Surjeet Singh Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Home A ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)482; 58(1995)DLT561; 1995(33)DRJ254
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, who is in the business of transport, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, order or direction against the respondents for quashing the order dated 24 October 1991 passed by the fourth respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Provisions & Lines, Delhi) and the order dated 29 January 1992 passed by the third respondent (The Commissioner of Police, New Delhi). Petitioner also prayed that his contract for supply of commercial matadors etc. to the respondents be restored for remaining period under the contract. As far as this second prayer is concerned, the period under the contract has already expired. (2) The third respondent had issued a tender inviting offers for supply of commercial Matadors for use in the police force. The tender of the petitioner was accepted and a contract entered into on 8 March 1991 for a period of one year. Under the contract the petitioner was to supply commercial Matadors to the police...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Prakash @ Chander Vs. the State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3028; 58(1995)DLT238
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) These three appellants-S/Shri Chander Prakash @ Chander, Smt-Charneli Devi and Azmuddin have challenged their conviction and sentences awarded to them by an Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, vide judgment and order dated 30/03/1991, by which they were convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code which was termed as forming part of the main offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants-Chander Prakash and Azmuddin were also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were awarded imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 / 34 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants-Chander Prakash and Azmuddin were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for offence punishable under Section 460 of the Indian Penal C...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Pershad and ors. Vs. Sat NaraIn Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT326; 1995(33)DRJ115; 1995RLR414
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is an application seeking amendment of the written statement. It is alleged that at the time of hearing of is 504/92 (an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure) an argument was addressed on behalf of the defendant that he has been under a bonafide impression that the entire terrace above Bata Shoe was bearing municipal no.1500, thereforee, the same number was mentioned in the rent agreement and also in the written statement. Court thereafter directed the defendant to submit a certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to the effect that the entire terrace was given a number `1500', but the defendant has not been made available the certificate so far. Defendant made enquiries otherwise from the House Tax Department of M.C.D. and now has realised that the entire ground floor in possessed of Bata Shoe Company bore Nos. 1500 to 1502 and there is no separate number for the roof/terrace above the shop and it has also come to his n...
Tag this Judgment!Special Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT235TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. In this appeal, the Collector has confirmed order-in-original, and has denied the benefit of Notification No.206/63, dated 30-11-1963 as amended from time to time in respect of iron or steel products falling under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) which exempts from payment of duty provided the final products are manufactured out of other iron or steel products falling under sub-item (ia) of 26AA on which the appropriate duty of excise has already been paid. Ld.Assistant Collector has held that in order to claim the benefit of the exemption under this notification, the assessee should produce the duty paying documents in respect of raw-material used for the manufacture of finished products. He has noted that the assessee were obtaining the raw-materials from the following sources : Out of the above-noted inputs, the assessee was able to produce duty paying documents in respect of 2130.769 MT and a quantity of 325...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Rajasthan Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT19TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal, which has been contested with the Cross Appeal by the importer-respondent. The Collector (Appeals) in the order-in-appeal has held that the goods namely "Diamond Impregnated Saws" - Diamond Blades are classifiable for Customs Duty under Heading 85.45/48 of the First Schedule to the CTA, 1975. However, he rejected the claim of the assessee for classifying the blades to CVD under Item 68 of the CET. Therefore, both the parties are aggrieved with this order and hence the appeal and cross appeal. The Asstt. Collector in his order has held that the original assessment made at the time of import under Heading 82.01/04 is correct, as it specifically covers blades for machine saws (including toothless saw blades). He has held that the Chapter covers articles with a blade, working edge of precious, semi-precious stones on a support of base metal as per Chapter Notes. He has also held that the classification for CVD under Heading 51A of CET is also in order and it s...
Tag this Judgment!Double Bee Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT261TriDel
1. M/s. Double Bee Enterprises, and M/s. Filco Industries, both situated at W-24, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi, being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 31-1-1985, passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, have filed the present two separate appeals. As both the appeals emerge out of the same Order-in-original, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of desert coolers and cooler cabinets. On the basis of the facts as contained in the show cause notice dated 12-10-1983, it was alleged that both of them constituted one unit, and that their separate existence was only on paper with a view to un-authorisedly avail exemption of Central Excise duty. The Additional Collector of Central Excise who adjudicated the matter under his Order-in-original dated 31-1-1985 demanded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 68,286.75, imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,000/- and redemption f...
Tag this Judgment!