Delhi Court April 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 9 of about 100 results (0.023 seconds)Trans Asia Carpets Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT113TriDel
1. Trans Asia Carpets Ltd. has filed the abovecaptioned five stay applications. Since the issue involved is common and as such, the abovecaptioned stay applications are being disposed of by this common order. Shri R. Santhanam, the learned advocate appeared. He pleaded that the total amount involved in these matters is Rs. 83,45,919.75 and there is a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000.00. The details of the amounts payable are as under :-Stay Application No. Duty Amount Penalty Amount-------------------- ----------- --------------E/Stay/ 229/95-A 5,57,870.30 1,00,000.00E/Stay/137/95-A 73,35,946.05 22,00,000.00E/Stay/237/95-A 2,90,677.72 1,00,000.00E/Stay/257/95-A 1,60,564.42 1,00,000.00E/Stay/280/95-A 861.26 Shri R. Santhanam, the learned advocate pleaded that in terms of proviso of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, there can be a separate class of buyers and the appellant is having separate class of buyers, among others, Airlines, five star hotels, Govt. offices and in addition to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raghuvindra Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995]216ITR839(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax 2. Appellate Tribunal to state a case arid refer to this court for its opinion, the following questions, relevant to the assessment year 1983-84: ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that annual letting value of the house property at N-26, Panchsheel Park, be calculated on the basis of monthly rent of Rs. 7,000 received from the assessed notwithstanding the fact that the assessed entered into a collusive agreement with the lessee-firm which is controlled by him and the lessee is Realizing Rs. 12,000 per month from letting out the above property? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was required to follow the decision taken in the earlier years...
Tag this Judgment!Gerlinde Bankemper Vs. Mtn Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995RLR355
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) As the aforesaid two W.P.s are inter-connected and the telephone No. 606518 which is the subject matter of C W. 1029/1995 and No. 676401 which is the subject matter of C W. 1040/;995 are located at the same premises, we propose to dispose of both W.P.s by this common judgment. (2) We have heard the learned counsels and pass following consent order :- (I)The petitioner in C.W. 1029/1995 shall pay all outstanding amounts on or before 5.4.1995. On such payment being made, the telephone No. 605518 shall be restored within 3 days thereafter, after changing the same into electronic exchange with Dynamic STD. ; (ii) The petitioner in C.W. 1040/1995 shall pay arrears against telephone No. 67640 amounting to Rs. 3,14,661.00 in Installments as : Rs. 50,000.00 in cash by 5.4.1995 ; Rs. 25,000.00 per month in ten Installments through post dated cheques ; Rs. 14.661.00 balance as last Installment through post dated cheque. (3) On petitioner making payment of Rs. 50,000.00 the tel...
Tag this Judgment!Hastimal JaIn Trading as Oswal Industries Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ56
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This appeal has arisen from the order of the Deputy Registrar, Trade Marks allowing the application of the applicant treating the opposition proceedings as having been abandoned by operation of Rule 52 sub-rule (2) of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules').(2) In the present case, Notice of opposition was filed on 10.8.92 and the counter- statement thereto was filed on 20.11.93. The evidence in support of opposition should have been filed latest by 20th January 1994 us provided under Rule 53(1) of the said Rules. As the opponents did not seek extension of time for filing the evidence within the period prescribed under Rule 53(1), it was held by the impugned order that the deeming provisions of Rule 53(2) of the said Rules had already come into operation and the opposition was deemed to have been abandoned and the Registrar had no power to extend the time after the deeming provision came into play.(3) Before proceeding ...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Chand JaIn Vs. Standard Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT797
Arun Kumar, J. 1. This petition is directed against an order of Addl. Rent Controller dated 5th February, 1993 rejecting the application of the landlord for amendment of the written statement. The eviction petition had been filed by the landlord under Clause (a) of proviso Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground of non-payment of rent. The application for amendment of the petition was filed so as to take an additional ground of eviction under Clause (b) to the same proviso, i.e. Sub-letting.2. By the impugned order the Addl. Rent Controller has held that this is a fresh cause of action available to the petitioner landlord for which he may file a fresh petition and it is not necessary to incorporate the same in the present eviction petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Abnash Kaur v. Dr. Avinash Nayyor & Ors., : AIR1975Delhi46 . In the said decision ...
Tag this Judgment!All India Cycle Rickshaw Operators Union (Regd.) Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT564
M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this petition the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to immediately release the seized cycle rickshaws of the petitioners with a further directions not to impound or seize the cycle rickshaws of the petitioners till such time a decision is taken on their applications in accordance with law.2. It may be stated herein that the writ petition namely C.W. 1742/1990 was disposed of finally by this Court by an order dated 12.12.1991. It has been observed in the said order dated 12.12.1991 thus 'that the Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi stated that all the cases of the petitioners Along with other applications would be taken up for consideration and decision would be taken thereon in accordance with the clarification and observation given by the Supreme Court within a period of 3 months.' It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, this Court by order dated 12.12.1991 directed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Xerographic System Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT337TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed against the two orders of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 31-1-1984 and another order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 8-4-1986. The latter appeal is by the Department namely the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-ill. The former has been filed by the Assessee. The matter relates to levy of additional duty of Customs (CVD) on the unassembled photo-copier imported by the assessee under Item 33D of the Central Excise Tariff covering office machine and apparatus whether assembled or un-assembled condition. The other appeal relates to the liability to Central Excise duty on the clearance of the assembled photocopier from the factory from the unassembled machines imported earlier. The sequence of events as narrated by the parties is that the assessee imported the unassembled photocopying machines on which the additional duty of customs (CVD) was levied under Item 33D by the Custom House. The assessee fi...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Breweries Ltd. Vs. Haryana Beer Agencies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)147; 1995(2)ARBLR44(Delhi); 58(1995)DLT682; 1995(33)DRJ327; (1995)111PLR24
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) By this petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, the plaintiff prays for reference of the disputes between the parties, enumerated in para 13 to the sole Arbitration of the Managing Director of Haryana Breweries Limited and also the Arbitrator to be directed to file the original award together with original records of the proceedings for the purpose of making the award rule of the Court. (2) That in the petition/plaint it is the say of the plaintiff that the it is a Government Undertaking engaged in the manufacture of beer with brand names of Rosy Pelican Beer, Black Partridge, Boxer, Bordie Pilsner etc. etc.. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 being partners therein entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on or about 30.6.1978 whereby defendants were appointed as stockist for the sale of various brands of beer of the plaintiff. That on or about 6.10.1982, defendants informed the plaintiff that 500 dozens of Black Partrid...
Tag this Judgment!Nut Limited Vs. Nut
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)201; 1995(34)DRJ709
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Question of court fees and valuation (for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction) has come up for decision in two suits. (2) Suit No.730/94, M/s.Fanner India Ltd. VS. M/s.Salbros Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. is a suit seeking reliefs of perpetual injunctions, delivery up, and rendition of accounts, complaining of infringing of plaintiff's copyright. The plaintiff has sought for two perpetual injunctions restraining passing off and infringement of the plaintiff's copyright; delivery up of the infringing material is also sought for. These three reliefs are valued at Rs.200.00 each and court fees of Rs.20.00 each has been paid. Relief of rendition of accounts has also been sought for valuing it at RS.1000.00 for the purpose of court fees, paying Rs.150.00 as court fees but valuing it for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.5 lacs. Total court fees paid is Rs.210.00 and total value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.5,00,600.00 . (3) Suit No. 1294/94 Nut Ltd. VS. Nut, is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Lok Kalyan Samiti Vs. Jagdish Prakash Saini and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(33)DRJ290
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) By this application, the plaintiff seeks to amend the suit valuation for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction to Rs.5,05,000.00 and also prays to amend the plaint to make up the deficiency/difference in the court fees already paid and now become payable on revaluation.(2) The suit as framed is value at Rs.1,05,000.00 for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction.(3) That the amendment Act raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court on its Original Side to Rs.5,00,000.00 being 4 of Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 1991 came to be passed and pursuant to the notification by the High Court on its administrative side, under the Amendment Act of 1991 suits below the valuation of Rs.5,00,000.00 except certain categories of matters excluded from the purview of the said notification, came to be transferred.(4) After the passing of the aforesaid notification by this High Court on its administrative side, the present suit became liable to be transferred to t...
Tag this Judgment!