Delhi Court September 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.
Bhagwana Vs. Radhey Shyam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)281; 60(1995)DLT605; 1995(35)DRJ365
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) C.M.NO. 593/85 Heard. The delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of.(2) C.M.NO.592/85 The present application is moved under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . for bringing on record the legal heirs of Shri Bhagwana, appellant herein, who died on September 5, 1984. The application is moved by his sons who are the legal heirs.(3) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The application is allowed. The legal heirs are brought on record. C.M. stands disposed of.(4) C.M.NO.673/85 This is an application under Order 22 Rules 2, 9 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the abatement as a result of the death of the appellant. The legal heirs of the appellant are already brought on record. This application is, accordingly, allowed.(5) R.S.A No.222/82 The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial Court dated April 16, 1981 and...
Hallmark Automation (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Del)523
ORDERM. A. BAKHSHI, J. M.These three appeals of the assessed relating to asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1989-90 involving common issue are disposed of by this consolidated order. The main dispute is relating to determination of the annual letting value of part of the building at 22, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The appellant-company is basically deriving income from manufacture and sale of electronic components. It has purchased a plot of land from C. D. A. in an open auction in February, 1978, at a total cost of Rs. 3,88,000. The construction of the building was started in September, 1979 and completed in December, 1983. The assessee-company had entered into agreements of lease both dt. 19th Feb., 1979, with two ladies, namely, Simran Singh and Punita Singh. These two ladies are closely related to the managing director of the company. The area of 4,800 sq. ft. was agreed to be let out to Simran Singh at a monthly rent of Rs. 24,000 from the date of handing over of possessio...
Kvaerner Boving Construction Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Del)429
ORDERN. D. RAGHAVAN, J. M. :This is an appeal of the assessed challenging the order dt. 16th Sept., 1993, of the CIT(A) as erroneous.2. The facts of the case are briefly these : The assessee, a foreign company, as part of a consortium arrangement contracted with National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC), a Government of India enterprise, to set up a turnkey hydro-electric power project at Uri, J&K.; The project was approved by the Department of Energy, Ministry of Power under s. 44BBB of the IT Act. As part of consortium arrangement the assessed entered into a contract with NHPC for erection, testing and commissioning of mechanical plant and machinery for the Uri Hydro Electric Project. Under the agreement with NHPC, the assessed is to receive payments for storage, erection testing and commissioning of mechanical plant and machinery and also payments for marine freight and insurance in respect of shipment of capital equipment and other goods. Under the agreement, the entire...
Mahalakshmi Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT352TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1994, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The appellants had filed a refund application for Rs. 3,31,813.62 in respect of duty paid for the products, Bars cleared on payment of duty falling under erstwhile T.I. 26AA(iii) during the period from Oct., 1981 to July, 1988 on the ground that Flat bar below 3 mm in thickness falls in the category of bars both in technical as well as in commercial parlance and such bars are exempted from levy of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 206/63, dated 30-11-1963 as amended by Notification No. 163/68, dated 31-8-1968 and further Notifications issued thereafter. The appellants relied on the judgements rendered by the Tribunal in support of their refund claim. The department after examining the claim felt that the assessee had not adopted the procedure as laid down under Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as they did not submit a letter of pr...
Collector of Customs Vs. Miracle Rubber (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT400TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 26-3-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of an imported consignment of Rubber Reclaiming Agent, JACET-350.Initially the product was classified under Heading 3403.19 of the Customs Tariff as a 'Lubricating Preparation'. Later, the Department issued a demand of differential duty of Rs. 35,208/- on the grounds that the item was classifiable under Heading 3812.30. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector after ordering re-classification of the item under Heading 3812.20. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 240/91-Cus., dated 21-6-1991 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the grounds that the classification up he d by the Assistant Collector was different from the one proposed in the show cause notice. On the direction of the Collector (Appeals) the matter was reopened after i...
Hitech Carbon Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC396Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from order-in-original, dated 21-5-1992, passed by the Collector of Central Excise New Delhi, confirming duty amount of Rs. 10,08,020.05 as Central Excise duty for clearance made in respect of Carbon Paper Rolls falling under sub-heading No. 4809.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period 1989-90 and 1990-91 under the provisions of Section 11A(1) proviso of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They have been imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/ under Rule 173Q.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were clearing the said goods manufactured by them without payment of duty thereon. The officers of Central Excise (Preventive) visited the factory premises on 25-2-1991 and found them manufacturing and clearing the said goods under the said sub-heading after availing of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. The statement of the partner of the firm was recorded and the statutory records were scrutinised by the Offic...
Raghubir Aggarwal Vs. Jagdish Prashad Garg and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ295
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In a suit for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and other incidental reliefs, the defendant has taken out this is under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, praying to stay the proceedings in the present suit and get the matter referred to the arbitrators in terms of the arbitration agreement. (2) According to the plaint, plaintiff and the defendants are the partners by virtue of the partnership agreement dated 2.4.79 and that the business of partnership to be the business of commission agents and merchants in Kirana goods under the name and Style of M/s. Jagdish Prashad Shiv Kumar Aggarwal or any other name as may be mutually agreed; that the said partnership was constituted w.e.f. 2.4.79 and the partnership business was carried on in the premises i.e. 204, Gali Kinariwali, Naya Bans, Delhi, taken on rent. (3) The deed of partnership dated 2.4.79 between the plaintiff and the defendants as the partners therein besides other clauses is said to contain a...
Kulveer Chandhoke Vs. Eastern Linkers (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas997(Delhi); 1995(35)DRJ312
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) A company application No. 501/86 in Company Petition No. 42/85, 'Eastern Linkers Private Limited' Company in liquidation has been filed. Kulveer Chandhoke is the applicant and the Official Liquidator is the respondent. Kulveer Chandhoke is respondent No. 6 in Cp 42/85. In this application it is submitted by the applicant that he is the owner of four-fully paid up preference shares of the face value of Rs.2,000 each of M/s Eastern Linkers Pvt. Limited (In liquidation) bearing No. 29 to 32. (2) According to the applicant, the shares were allotted to him on 1.11.1951 and share scrips are in his possession and he has filed the photo copies of the same. He has further mentioned that he has not transferred the shares to any one and these shares are continued to be his property. (3) It is submitted in the application that in May, 1960 two individual shareholders namely D.N. Sodhi and S.L. Bali developed personal differences and their personal differences led to filing...
Shakuntala Bali Vs. Eastern Linkers (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT497
Dalveer Bhandri, J. (1) This application has been filed by Smt. Shakuntala Bali wife of S.L. Bali, in C.P.N0.42/85, under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. In this application, it is prayed that her claim with regard to 8 shares be determined. It may be pertinent to mention that in May, 1962, individual shareholders namely D.N. Sodhi and S.L. Bali developed personal differences which .led to filing of winding up Petition No. 39/73 by D.N. Sodhi.(2) This application has been filed by Smt. Shakuntala Bali wife of S.L. Bali. It is mentioned in the application that before the petition could proceed for trial, D.N. Sodhi entered into a contract with S.L. Bali for the sale and purchase of shares among themselves and both of them agreed. The only question as to whether Mr. D.N. Sodhi had 5 shares or 21 shares be decided by the Court. She further mentioned that the applicant (Smt. Shakuntala Bali) had nothing to do with the said contract. She had mentioned that these shares were tra...
R.A. Bhujwala and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ162
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) In the suit for perpetualinjunction, seeking to restrain defendants1 & 2 from acting upon its order/notice dated 19.8.94, and demolishing any part of the property of the plaintiffs i.e. C-191, Sarvoday Enclave, New Delhi, the plaintiffs, the three different occupants of different portions of the said property, by this is seek to restrain the defendants in identical terms pending hearing and disposal of the suit.(2) It is not in dispute that plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.3 are the owners and occupiers of ground floor, including the basement, the first floor and second floor respectively of the building No. C-191, Sarvoday Enclave, New Delhi and that all the plaintiffs are the subsequent purchasers of their respective portions. In other words, the building admittedly came to be constructed before the plaintiffs purchased and occupied their portions.(3) Defendants gave notice under Section 349 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »