Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 12 of about 155 results (0.021 seconds)United Machinery Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT477TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 23-2-1985 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Coimbatore. The appellants have also filed the above-captioned application seeking permission for production of additional evidence under Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the erection and fabrication of textile machinery classifiable under Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were clearing their products after availing exemption under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 under which clearances of goods falling under Item 68 upto Rs. 30 lakhs in a financial year were exempt from payment of duty. On 27-1-1984 the Superintendent of Central Excise visited the premises of one M/s. Jayalakshmi Machine Works and recorded statements of Shri K. Nandagopal, a partner of the firm and also drew up a Panchnama consequent to the deposition made by Shri Nandagopal. Statements of Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Munish Kumar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)54ITD655(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's appeal for assessment year 1989-90. The main question involved in this appeal is computation of capital gains. Three subsidiary questions are involved. The first among them is : (1) Whether, since no amount of compensation is awarded in the year of account and since the award was passed only on 22-2-1990 even the amount received in this year of account, namely, Rs. 83,364 is not liable for capital gains and the whole of the compensation amount awarded is liable for capital gain only in assessment year 1990-91 (2) Alternatively, since only an amount of Rs. 83,364 which represents 80 per cent of the compensation was received by the assessee in the year of account only, the capital gains is to be computed on that amount as for as assessment year 1989-90 is concerned. (3) What is the value of the land acquired as on 1-1-1974 Whether its value can be accepted at Rs. 26 per sq. yd. as per the registered valuer's report (4) Whether the amount of Rs. 4,573 is correctl...
Tag this Judgment!Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT363
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) M/S. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at B-4/205, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner Company') has filed the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act. averring that the Petitioner Company carry on the business of construction, engineering and designing and that the Petitioner Company are a builder of international repute and have earned a big name in the above said business. It is alleged that the Petitioner Company submitted tender for the construction of 'Central Institute of Education Technology at Ncert Campus, New Delhi to Respondent No. 1 Union of India, through Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Construction Engineer, Civil Engineering Division, Department of Space, Ahmedabed, which was accepted by the above said respondents on 12th August, 1986. It is further al...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Sharma and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1116; 1995(34)DRJ298; 1995RLR524
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) ADMIT.(2) I have heard the parties. Briefly staling facts of the case are that on 19.09.1991, one Ms. Sunita lodged a complaint before D.C.P., Anti Dowry Cell against (1) her' husband, Mr. Satish Kumar, (2) elder brother of the husband, Mr. Prem Chand, (3) elder brother's wife Mrs. Lalita, (4) Mr. Sunil Kumar, the petitioners and others seeking action for demanding dowry.(3) The main grievance of the petitioners is that none of them is either residing in the same premises or are responsible for any of the acts alleged against the husband, father-in-law or sister-in-law. One of the four petitioners has since died, who was uncle of the husband. Out of the other three, one Mr. Phulena Dixit, petitioner No.4 is aged 75 years, and is the husband of the sister of the father of the accused, Mr. Satish Kumar, who is the husband of the complainant. Mrs. Asha Sharma, petitioner No.2 is the daughter of said Mr. Phulena Dixit and Dr. V.N. Sharma, petitioner No.1 is the husband of...
Tag this Judgment!Munish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Del)577
ORDERT. V. RAJAGOPALA RAO, PRESIDENT :This is an assessees appeal for asst. yr. 1989-90. The main question involved in this appeal is commutation of capital gains. Three subsidiary questions are involved. The first among them is :Whether, since no amount of compensation is awarded in the year of account and since the award was passed only on 22nd Feb., 1990 even the amount received in this year of account namely Rs. 83,364 is not liable for capital gain, and the whole of the compensation amount awarded is liable for capital gain only in asst. yr. 1991-92.2. Alternatively, since only an amount of Rs. 83,364 which represents 80% of the compensation was received by the assessed in the year of account only, the capital gains is to be computed on that amount as far as asst. yr. 1989-90 is concerned.3. What is the value of the land acquired as on 1st Jan., 1974. Whether its value can be accepted at Rs. 26 per sq. yd. as per the registered valuers report.4. Whether the amount of Rs. 4,573 is ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC334
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the award dated December 12, 1979 of Shri Mahendra Pal, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , Delhi The respondents claimants filed claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 for grant of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The claimants are the widow and children of the deceased Ganga Ram, who was killed in accident on October 29,1969 at about 7 p.m. on Ring Road near Double Storey Military Quarters, near village Naraina, Delhi. The deceased Ganga Ram was riding his horse-cart when respondent No. 2, while driving truck No. DLL-5851 rashly and negligently first struck against the cyclist, going on his wrong side and after causing injuries to the cyclist dashed against horse-cart of Ganga Ram from behind and dragged the deceased as well as the horse-cart to a considerable distance crushing him as well as the horse on the spot. The said respondent was driving the offending truck under the employment and direction ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. A. Vilasini Vs. Laxman Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC354
C.M. Nayar J.1. The present first appeal is directed against award dated 27th April, 1992 of Shri Jaswant Singh, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellant is the daughter of the deceased Shri P.K. Nair and filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for claim of compensation of Rs. 1,50,00/- as a result of the death of her late father. The brief facts are that on 2nd June, 1983 at about 11.30 a.m. the deceased who was employed as Warrant Officer in Vayu Sena Bagih, New Delhi was proceeding to his office on his bicycle. When he reached the place fm front of Vayu Sena Bagh, a lorry bearing chasis No. MHP/577 driven by respondent No. 1 hit the deceased as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries due to which he died in the Army Hospital on 8th June, 1983. The driver of the offending vehicle was in employment of respondent No. 2. It was alleged that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondents No. 1. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. H.S. Vedi Vs. Mr. K.S. Kler and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi44
ORDER1. Heard the learned advocates for both the sides.2. This is an application filed by the original plaintiff in OMP No. 147-A/1987 under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The present plaintiff H. S. Vedi, Mr. K. S. Kler and one Mr. K. K. Duggal had entered into partnership agreement in Gulf countries and they were carrying out business in Gulf countries. Out of these three partners Shri K. K. Duggal expired and thereafter his widow Vina Duggal has filed suit No. 207/86 and two petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in this Court and all these proceedings taken up by widow of Mr. K. K. Duggal are pending. In those proceedings present petitioner H. S. Vedi and respondent K. S. Kler were defendants and they were represented by advocate Mr. Devinder Nath. When said Devinder Nath was representing them, a document took place on 20th December, 1986. The said document is an agreement containing arbitration Clause. Plaintiff H. S. Vedi has come before this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Harmeet Singh Ghai Vs. Anand S. Khullar, Deputy Commissioner (Recovery ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT152
D.K. Jain, J.1. The issue arising for consideration in this batch of writ petitions relates to the validity of the action already taken or proposed to be taken by the sales tax authorities against the petitioners for effecting recovery of arrears of sales tax and Central sales tax payable by them under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short, 'the local Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act') by taking recourse to arrest and detention in civil prison of the petitioners as provided under the provisions of sections 136 and 138 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short 'the Land Reforms Act') and the rules made thereunder.2. Apart from the question of propriety and validity of the action taken by the respondents in the case of each of the petitioners, which we shall deal separately, the short but the prime common question requiring consideration is whether a person is liable to be arrested and detained for a total period of 15 days, prescribed in sec...
Tag this Judgment!Fuji International Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT175; 1995(34)DRJ680
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) This application is filed by defendant No.3 under Order Ix Rule 7, Cpc, to set aside the exparte order passed against him on 17.5.1991. The claim of defendant No.3 is resisted by the plaintiff by contending that the application is barred by the law of Limitation and there are latches on the part of the applicant and that there are no grounds for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him.(2) In this application an interest question of law is raised and, thereforee, it is necessary to give the details which have given rise to this application. The plaintiff Company had filed the present suit by presenting Along with the plaint an application under Rule 1 Order XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code on 27.9.89. It was the contention of the plaintiff that it was an indigent person and had no sufficient means to pay the Court Fees. On the said application notices were issued to the opponents and the said application was contested. After considering the material before hi...
Tag this Judgment!