Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 9 of about 167 results (0.039 seconds)Encon Furnaces (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)56ITD14(Delhi)
1. The sole contention raised in this appeal filed by the assessee is that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the appeal in limine. According to the learned AR Shri Rakesh Gupta, the discretion as vested in the Proviso to Section 249(4) of the Act has not been exercised judicially. It is submitted that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 1988-89 declaring an income of Rs. 89,637. As per the return prepared by its Chartered Accountant the income-tax due on the aforesaid income was shown at Rs. 47,061. This was duly paid by the assessee. The assessment for the concerned assessment year, ie., 1988-89 was finalised at an income of Rs. 2,82,210 raising a demand of Rs. 1,40,149. As per the assessment order which is dated 26-9-1989 the penalty proceedings under Sections 273 and 271(1)(c) of the Act were also directed to be initiated. The assessee filed an appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) in Form No. 35 on 30-11-1989. Vide...
Tag this Judgment!State of Haryana Vs. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi198
ORDER1. Plaintiff State of Haryana established an Industrial Committee on 29-5-1969 to suggest ways and means for speedy, and intensive industrialisation of the State of Haryana. On the recommendation of the said Committee the State of Haryana had decided to provide special incentives to industries to be established in the State of Haryana.2. Defendant M/s. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. is a limited Company and they decided to have a plant to manufacture hot rolled steel strips skelp. For the said purpose they got prepared a project report front M/s. M.M. Dastoor and Company of Calcutta which was an approved company by the State of Haryana.3. Defendant approached the plaintiff Government of Haryana in the year 1969 tosubsidise the cost of the project report for manufacture of hot rolled steel strips. M/s. M.M. Dastoor & Company, Calcutta, had charged for the Project Report an amount of Rs 1,50,000/-. Plaintiff State of Haryana agreed to subsidise the same to the extent of 50 per cent and the...
Tag this Judgment!Narinder Singh Sabharwal and ors. Vs. Gurdeep Singh Sabharwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT325
ORDER39,RULES I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction against the defendant. I.A. 7841 /95 is an application filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule, 4 read with Section 151 of the Code for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim order of injunction dated 25th July, 1995. (2) Narinder Singh, plaintiff No. 1 is the son of late S. Meharban Singh. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons and plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the grand-sons of plaintiff No. 1. Defendant is the son of S.Devinder Singh. Narinder Singh had another brother Harbans Singh. Devinder Singh is the natural son of Narinder Singh. There is a dispute, which is subject matter of another litigation. Plaintiff No. 5 herein has filed Suit No. 559/95 against defendant's father Devinder Singh, impleading Narinder Singh and Smt. Joginder Kaur (wife of Narinder Singh), claiming a decree that Devinder Singh is not the adopted son of Harbans Singh and his wi...
Tag this Judgment!Corporate Voice (P) Ltd. Vs. Uniroll Leather India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT321; (1996)112PLR8
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is defendant's application under Order 37, Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking leave to defend in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 10,13,870.50 under Order xxxvII of the Code. (2) The defendant after service duly put in appearance. On summons for judgment having been served on 26th April, 1994, the defendant on 6th May, 1995 applied for leave to defend. (3) The plaintiff's objection that te application for leave to defend is not within limitation cannot be accepted and the same deserves to be repelled holding that the leave to defend has been sought within the period allowed in law. While computing period of 10 days, either the day of service of summons or the day on which application is filed has to be excluded. Both days cannot be counted. (4) Leave to defend has been sought alleging that dispute between the parties in respect of the suit amount cannot be settled in summary proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. Vs. Prudent International Shipping and T ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ72
M. Jagannandha Rao, C.J.(1) This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff (Ms. Bharat Stanch Industries Ltd.. New Delhi) against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24-2-1995 in I.A. 10655194 in Suit 2788194. by trial order the learned Single Judge granted stay of the proceedings in title suit and refused to stay action under the arbitration clause contained in the Charter Party which has resulted in the proposed arbitration by the 3rd and 4th defendants at London.(2) The appellant, who filed the suit sought a declaration in its favor and against the defendants declaring that there was no private of contract between the appellant and the 1st defendant (M/s. Prudent International Shipping & Training Company Ltd., Bahamas) and or a declaration that there did not exist any arbitration clause between the appellant and the 1st defendant or the 3rd defendant and that the defendants 3 & 4 could not have any jurisdiction to entertain any arbitration proceedings. A permanent injunction was s...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Aggarwal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT446
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate of will dated 18th June, 1991 of Smt. Chhaya Aggarwal, petitioner's wife. (2) Notice was directed to be issued to the relations and beneficiaries, whose particulars are mentioned in para-5 of the petition. Citation was also published in 'The Statesman'. Chief Revenue Controlling Authority Was also notified of the petition. In pursuance to the citation and notice objections have not been preferred. As per report of the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, property was located within the jurisdiction of District Collector, Kanpur. Report-was sought from the District Collector, Kanpur, who reported the estimated value of the immovable property of the deceased, referred to in Annexure-A, namely. House No. A-6, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. at Rs. 80,00,000.00 , including the value of the land on which the house stands. The deceased had I /4th share in the property. Accordingly, the...
Tag this Judgment!Asian Tubes (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT639TriDel
1. The captioned stay petitions have been filed for waiver of pre-deposit amounting to Rs. 1,94,674.08 and Rs. 4,47,763.69. As the two petitions arise out of the same impugned order, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Shri G.S. Bhangoo, the learned Advocate arguing on the stay petitions submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes; that for manufacture of these tubes, they were purchasing flat rolled products of thickness less than 5 mm.; that during the material period, some controversy arose about classification of flat rolled produts; that the Department was of the view that flat rolled products used by them were classifiable as flats. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Calcutta Steel Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 90 held that the flat rolled products used as inputs by the applicants were classifiable as bars, therefore, some of the suppliers of flat rolled produ...
Tag this Judgment!D.L.F. United Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Del)33; [1996]217ITR333(Delhi)
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. As the questions of law referred to us for our opinion in these references involve identical questions of law with only some textual changes, we propose to dispose of these references by this common judgment. 2. Income-tax References Nos. 259 to 261 of 1977 : 3. The present references by applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. As the questions of law arising for consideration in respect of the aforesaid assessment years were common a consolidated statement of the case was drawn up by the Tribunal whereby the following five questions of law have been referred for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation amounts of Rs. 70,371, Rs. 11,656 and Rs. 16,23,117 received by the assessed for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 for acquisition of its lands by the Government are assessable to tax as profits of the assessor's ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indra Jaggannathan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1996)ACC267; 61(1996)DLT139; (1996)112PLR31
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present judgment will dispose of Fao Nos. 216/82 and 223/82. The brief facts are that on April 27, 1974 at about 8.45 a.m. deceased P.Jagannathan was driving his two -.wheeler scooter No. CJN-72 on Station Road, Delhi Cantt. Shri Steven Casewe.ll (respondent No. I in Fao No. 223/82)wassitting asa pillion rider. It was stated that scooter was being driven on the correct side and at normal speed. When it reached the load near Raj RiflesContre,busNo. DLP-5420 tame from the opposite direction. The bus was alleged to be driven rashly, recklessly and negligently by Kashmir Singh, respondent No. 2. The said respondent was driving the bus at a very fast speed and without any proper look out was overtaking and while doing so the bus came on the wrong side and violently hit the two-wheeler scooter driven by the deceased in which the injured Steven Case well was going. The said accident resulted in the death of P. Jagannathan and injuries to Steven Casewell. The bus in quest...
Tag this Judgment!Pearey Lal Vs. O.P. Singla
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)380; 60(1995)DLT305; 1996(36)DRJ180
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the award passed by the Labour Court dated 9.7.1982(2) MR.L.D Adalkha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has argued that award suffers from basic infirmity as the Trial Court has not taken into consideration that in the complaint, which was the basis for the termination of the services of the petitioners, no direct or legal evidence was brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that even from the hare reading of the complaint, on the basis of which the services of the petitioners were terminated, it would he apparent that the complaint was made alter the alleged incident at the instance of Management. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that though the complaint was dated 6.5.1980, the petitioner were issued show cause notice on 8.5.1980 and the petitioners replied to the respondent on 9.5.1980 that the allegations ...
Tag this Judgment!