Delhi Court May 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 11 of about 141 results (0.022 seconds)Vinod Kumar and Co. Vs. Assessing Officer.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Del)683
ORDERVIMAL GANDHI, J. M. :These two appeals by the assessed for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92 are directed against orders of CIT(A), Faridabad upholding application of s. 44AC of the IT Act.2. The assessee, a registered firm in the two years under appeal, carried on business of purchase and sale of country liquor and Indian made foreign liquor. The assessed disclosed income based on regular books of accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) was of the view that income in respect of sale of country liquor is to be determined under provision of s. 44AC(1)(a) and for determining expenditure, provisions of s. 44AC(3) were to be applied. The AO, thereforee, determined profit of the assessed not with reference to books of accounts but by applying provisions of s. 44AC of IT Act.3. Being aggrieved by above decision, the assessed filed appeal before CIT(A), Faridabad and relied upon decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Satpal Tdg. Co. vs . Excise & Taxation Commissioner . The l...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Veena Kalia Vs. Dr. Jatinder Nath Kalia and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi54; 59(1995)DLT635
1. These appeals are by the appellant-wife against the order dated 23 November, 1985 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby her two petitions, one for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 (for short 'the Act') and the other for maintenance pendente lite filed against the first respondent-husband were dismissed as not maintainable. This was on the ground that the petitioner had accepted the judgment of the foreign Court dissolving the marriage between her and the first respondent on a petition filed by him. The learned Judge held that the present petition was barred by principles of rest judicata or in any case it was a mala fide attempt on the part of the petitioner to harass the respondent-husband and that it was nothing but a misuse of the process of the Court.2. The petitioner filed a petition for divorce against the first respondent-husband under the provisions of Section 13(1)(i). (i-a) and (i-b) of the Act seeking divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and de...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3771; 58(1995)DLT567
ORDER1. This is an application by the petitioner for release on bail in anticipation of his arrest. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of professional rivalry. The case against the petitioner was registered on July 3, 1994. Till then there was no expert report with regard to the factum of alleged adulteration of cement. Hence, no case could have been registered against the petitioner. No commission of cognizable offence is made out from the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner. Thus the entire investigation is illegal and invalid. Mixing is no offence and as such no case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience) is made out. Cement is not an essential commodity as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act. Hence no offence could have been committed by the petitioner. No notice as required...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Vipul Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ233
Usha Mehra, J. (1) State Bank of India has sought recovery of Rs.4,64,655.73P from M/s Vipul Enterprises basing its claim on the cash credit facilities provided to the said Firm under the provisions of Credit to Small Scale Industries. These cash credit facilities in the form of cash credit (Factory Type). Cash Credit Bills, Medium Term Loan, Medium Term Equity Funds Scheme, Medium Term Clean Limit were sanctioned in 1982-83, in favor of the Firm through its sole proprietor i.e. defendant No.2. Defendants 3 to 6 stood guarantors for the repayment of these loans. Defendant No.2 was the sole proprietor of defendant No 1 at the lime of sanctioning of these credit facilities. He executed various loan documents. As a security he pledged the goods produced and merchandised by the defendant No.1 with the Bank. Defendants 1 & 2 also agreed to keep the margin in the goods pledged by the defendants to the bank in the ratio of 10% in the raw material and 10% of finished goods. They also pledged m...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Ojha and ors. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)109; 58(1995)DLT800; 1995(34)DRJ164; 1995LabIC2389
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) The present Writ petition has been brought by some of the teachers in Desh Bandhu College, which is one of the constituent colleges of Delhi University and is one of the University maintained and run colleges. The petitioners happen to be Senior Lecturers and Readers of various departments in the same college. (2) Respondent No. Delhi University happens to be a statutory body incorporated under the Delhi University Act of 1922 and founded by the Government. Respondent No.2, apart from being one of the officers of the University, is also the Chairman of the Executive Council, which happens to be one of the authorities of the University under the Delhi University Act. Respondent No.3 is the Union of India. Respondent No.4 is a Governing Body of Desh Bandhu College, while respondent No.5, Dr.Balbir Singh is the Principal of the said college. Prof.P.B. Mangla, respondent No.6 was at the material time the Chairman of the Governing Body of the said college. (3) Some of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Excise Vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC119Tri(Delhi)
1. The above 3 appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. E/2449/86-C - The respondents herein are manufacturers of goods falling under TI 17 and TI 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They manufacture "printed shells" and "printed H.L.Blanks". They filed classification lists dated 9-3-1982 and 23-4-1982 respectively classifying these products under TI-68 and claiming benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 104/82, dated 28-2-1982.The Assistant Collector classified both the products under TI 17(4) as printed boxes (slide type of boxes and printed boxes in flattened /unassembled condition and denied the benefit of exemption under Notification 66/82, dated 28-2-1982. The asseessees preferred an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) contending that the printed shells are not known in common parlance as boxes or cartons and, therefore, cannot be classified under TI 17(4), but are classifiable under TI 68 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Forbes Gokak Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT185TriDel
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellants by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Delhi, confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). It was decided with the consent of both the sides to dispose of the appeal itself for reasons which have become apparent. Therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit, I proceed to decide the appeal.2. I have heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, DR.3. The applicant is a licensed Customs House Agent and penalty has been imposed upon it Under Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that it had abetted the attempted smuggling of antiques by an exporter M/s. Friends Electronic Company. The argument of Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, that the show cause notice or the order of the Dy. Collector do not specify the act or omission whereby the Customs House Agent has abetted the smuggling. A simple reading of the show cause notice shows that n...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Modern Apparels
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT305TriDel
1. Being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 27-4-1994, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue.2. The matter relates to the applicability of the exemption Notification No. 195/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, and Notification No.291/84-Cus., dated 28-12-1984, to the aluminised glass fibre fabrics, imported for manufacturing fire fighting suits for use on the ships.The Revenue had pleaded that the said fabrics imported were not the goods for construction of or fitment to the ships of Indian Navy/Coast Guard.3. The matter was posted for hearing on 27-3-1995 when Shri Mohan Lal, learned JDR appeared for the appellant (Revenue). Shri M. Shah, partner of the respondent company represented the respondent (importers).4. Shri Mohan Lal, the ld. JDR stated that the fire fighting suits were for personal use, and were not for fitment to the ships. They were a general purpose item and were not covered by the provisions of exemption Noti...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Federation of Small and Medium Newspapers Vs. Press Council of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)496; AIR1996Delhi90; 58(1995)DLT600
ORDERM.K. Sharma, J.1. By this application the petitioners seek a direction to the Press Council of India to give inspection of the papers furnished by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Indian Newspaper Society in response to the notice of reconstitution of the Press Council of India. The petitioners have stated that they had made an application dated 7-2-1995 before the Press Council of India for inspection of the list of members furnished by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Indian Newspaper Society and also the relevant papers connected with the names of organisations which recommended four names to be included in the reconstituted Press Council of India. It is further stated that the Press Council of India by its letter dated 13-2-1995 informed the petitioners that the inspection would not be granted unless this Court passed orders in this regard. According to the petitioners the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent No. 1 is arbitrary and unreasonable, and unless such an inspection is giv...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. Vs. V.P. Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT301
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is a suit under Order37CPC seeking recovery of Rs. 22,02,55.87p. The defendant having been served with the summons in the suit has filed appearance. The plaintiff took out summons for judgment, which was served on the defendant. (2) An application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) Civil Procedure Code seeking leave to defend the suit was filed on 12th November, 1993 duly supported by an affidavit. Reply to this application has been filed supported by an affidavit and documents. On behalf of the defendant a rejoinder has been filed. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the application seeking leave to defend has not disclosed any such facts as would entitle the defendant to the leave sought for and on the contrary from the perusal of the pleadings and the documents (which are not disputed or which are not under challenge) filed in the case it is dear that it is a case of setting up a defense which is illusory or sham or practically a moonshine and hence the pla...
Tag this Judgment!