Delhi Court February 1996 Judgments

Arun Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)955; 1996CriLJ2280; 61(1996)DLT887; 1996(37)DRJ242

P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated May 30, 1992 and order dated June 25, 1992 by which appellant Arun Kumar has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the murder of one Anita during the intervening night of 24th and 25th July 1985 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in addition.(2) The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence as the investigating agency could not find out any eye witness of the occurrence. One Sukhvinder Singh was also tried along with the present appellant for the murder of the said woman but he has been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the State has not preferred any appeal challenging his acquittal.(3) The facts which have come out from the evidence led during the trial are that Anita a...

R.K. Borthakur Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal together with dispensation application has been filed against A.O. No. 107/92/AD dated 13-5-1992 under which a penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) on the allegation that he otherwise acquired foreign exchange of HK $ 10,000 without the general permission or special permission of the RBI and thereby contravened the provisions of section 8(1). The appellant submitted his written submissions and prayed for disposal of the appeal after considering the memorandum of appeal and the written submissions as he does not have financial means to bear the expenditure of personal appearances. 2. In his dispensation application, the appellant has pleaded that because of the disturbed conditions in the north eastern part of Assam where the appellant is practising, he is unable to have regular income from legal practice and, therefore, he is unable to deposit the amount of pen...

Maharaja International Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT466TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of various domestic electrical equipments. They had taken modvat credit in respect of certain materials produced by them on 'High Sea' sales' basis. The parties who had imported the goods in question were having special import licences to cover the same and they could sell them to actual users like the appellants. The goods after clearance were transferred to the appellants and the triplicate copies of the relevant bills of entry were endorsed by the respective importers in favour of the appellants.Such endorsements were to the effect that the entire consignments covered by such bills of entry have been delivered to the appellants directly from the port of importation and that no refund of countervailing duty paid has been claimed nor will it be claimed. The appellants thereafter filed the copies of the bills of entry with the Central Excise authorities with a declaration that they intended to avail the facility of countervailing duty credit under R...

B.R. Rasaily Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 62(1996)DLT301; [1996(73)FLR1216]; (1996)IILLJ22Del; 1996(2)SLJ89(Delhi)

J. K. Mchra, J. 1. The short question that arises in the present case is as to whether after having come to the conclusion that the termination was not legal and justified in view of the non-observance of the rules and principles of natural justice, 'and having granted reinstatement with full back wages, was he justified in awarding back wages without increments, without assigning any reasons. I have perused the award of the Labour Court. I find that after reaching the conclusion, 'So, this all is apparently against the principles of natural justice rendering the termination of services of workman illegal and unjustified'. 'In view of my above discussion, I hold that the services of Mr. B. R. Rasaily, workman have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably. As such, the workman is entitled to an order of reinstatement. The workman has also categorically stated that he is unemployed since 24.3.1988. The management, on the other hand has not been able to rebut this assertion of the work...

Kishori Lal and Mukat Behari Lal Mathur Vs. Siri Krishan,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT577

C.M. Nayafr, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three appeals S.A.O- Nos. 202181, 212181 and 13190 as they raise common questions of law The first two appeals arise out of judgment dated September 17, 1979 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and judgment dated May 7, 1981 passed by Rent Control Tribunal. (2) The respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on August 21, 1978 for eviction of the appellants from one big room, two small rooms, verandah, part of open terrace in front etc. forming part of the tenancy premises on second floor, plot No. 27, House No. 4779, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The allegations were made that Kishori Lal, since deceased, was tenant under the respondent in respect of the above said premises since July 18, 1953 at rental of Rs. 771- per month, but has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent within two months from service of notice dated December 18, 1977. The petition f...

Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT97TriDel

1. The order of the Collector of Customs, Madras fixing the assessable value at DM 3,98,000 on the consignment imported by the appellant, treating the import as a fresh supply and not as a repaired or re-exported article, confirming the short levy amounting to Rs. 38,66,945/- and denying the appellant the benefit of Notification No.204/76, is challenged in this appeal. We have heard both sides.2. Appellant is a manufacturer of Phthalic Anhydride in its ractory at Ranipet. In 1985-86 a new plant was set up in the factory and tor this purpose, a tripartite agreement was entered into between appellant and M/s. PSA-LVC Von Deyden, West Germany (for short PSA) and M/s. Davy Mckee Zimmer (for short, Davy). PSA was to supply technical know-how and the catalyst. Davy was to engineer the plant and coordinate all activities and supply some critical equipment, including the reactor and gas cooler. The plant including catalyst was imported on payment of duty treating the import as project import....

Pratap Universal Machinery Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT528TriDel

1. The captioned Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held: "In regard to the merits of the case, the fact is that the appellants' declaration was, 'all type of marble-stone granite cutting/processing/finishing/polishing machine spares and accessories thereof 8464.00 i.e. slabs/ tiles/polishing/block cutting/champering and engineering, dressing/bridge cutting, splitring, marble wheel cutting, edge cutting, heavy and light marble drill, Engroduty, sper sharper, portable edge cutting machine, single disk cutter and granite and marble gangsaw etc.' Thus it is very clear that they did not declare the parts of gangsaw falling under sub-heading 8466.00, as their final product. Their contention that the declaration of sub-heading is not required has rightly been rejected by the adjudicating officer, and more importantly, their declaration of the goods falling under sub-heading 8464.00 cannot be stretched to...

Snc/Acres Vs. Deputy Commissioner

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)57ITD419(Delhi)

1. In these three appeals filed for assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 & 1987-88 the main contention raised by the assessee pertains to addition made on account of fee for services rendered in Canada. As common issue is involved in all the three appeals, they are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Facts in brief as gathered from the orders of the revenue authorities as well elaborated by the learned AR are that the assessee is a joint venture of two Canadian companies declared as a company under sec. 2(17) of the Income-tax Act by CBDT. SNC/ACRES (hereinafter referred as assessee) entered into an agreement with National Hydro-electric Power Corporation Ltd. (in short NHPC) on 3rd August, 1984, to provide technical services to ensure timely completion of the Chamera Hydro-electric Project. Under the terms of the contract technical services are to be rendered by the assessee in India as well as in Canada for which fees are payable. The asses...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Del)4; [1996]219ITR267(Delhi)

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is an application filed by the Revenue seeking for review of and recalling the order dt. 13th Nov., 1995, passed by this Court in ITC No. 132 of 1990 and ITC No. 133 of 1990, dismissing the reference applications preferred by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, relevant to the asst. yrs. 1967-68 and 1972-73. 2. Mr. Rajendra appearing for the Revenue submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dt. 13th Nov., 1995, and, thereforee, the said order requires to be reviewed by recalling the order. Drawing our attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order in the quantum appeal in respect of the asst. yr. 1967-68 to the effect that the use of the machinery by another person was not disclosed by the assessed and, thereforee, the assessed was responsible for the underassessment of its income-tax for the asst. yr. 1967-68 which occurred by reason of the omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all ...

Babu Lal Barwa Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT35

Arun Kumar, J.(1) The respondent Dda has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the Award dated 17/07/1990 vide I.A. No.11384 of 1990. The learned Counsel for the objector has challenged the Award so faras it relates to Claims No. 1 and 2 of the contractor/petitioner herein. Under claimNo. 1, the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 on account of under payment due to part rates for the work executed and completed till rescission of the work. In the Award on this point the Arbitrator has noted that the respondent Dda had admitted that a sum of Rs. 20,506.00 had been withheld in part rates. The plea of there spondent regarding justification for withholding the said amount was rejected by the Arbitrator after considering the same on merits. At this stage, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Arbitrator. I find no ground to interfere with the findings of the Arbitrator with respect to Claim No. 1 under which a sum of Rs.20,50...