Delhi Court March 1996 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.
Filtron India Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT526TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 19-2-1986.2. Learned counsel stated that the appellants had imported a number of plates for heat exchangers.3. The goods were classified under 84.17(2). They, however, applied for re-assessment on the ground that they had imported them for being utilised in dairy plant for processing of milk; and therefore, in view of the exclusion of machine, equipment etc. used for treating milk provided under sub-heading (2), it is the sub-heading (1) i.e. 'not elsewhere specified' which was more appropriate and the goods should be classified accordingly. The Assistant Collector had however, rejected their request observing inter alia, that in accordance with the catalogue produced by them, the items had other applications also.4. The Collector (Appeals) had also rejected their petition. But, it was their submission that in the catalogue filed by them, namely, that of Filtron India regarding 'plate heat exchanger ...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: (1996)57ITD557(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 1988-89 is directed against order of CIT(A) deleting interest of Rs. 8,70,000 levied under section 216 of the Income-tax Act.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the assessee is a public limited company and was obliged to file statement of advance tax under section 209 of the Income-tax Act. For the purposes of filing statement, the assessee was required to take into account with adjustments, the following income : "(i) Its total income of the latest previous year in respect of which he has been assessed by way of regular assessment. (ii) The total income of the latest previous year (being a year later than the previous year referred to above) on the basis of which tax has been paid by order under section 140A and this total income exceeds to the total income as referred to above." 3. It is an admitted position that for above purposes, the assessed income to be taken into account was that of assessment year 1984-85.Th...
Om Pal Singh Hoon Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)265; 63(1996)DLT564; 1996(36)DRJ721
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) RULE.(2) The movie in question 'Bandit Queen' which has been given 'A' Certificate pursuant to the order of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (for short 'FCAT') dated August 14, 1995, depicts a story of ordeal and agony of a woman who is shown to have been subjected to atrocities, maltreatment, rape and incarceration. The film is based on the book of the same name by Mala Sen and is directed and produced by the fifth respondent and the third respondent respectively. Facts as appear from the court record and as also from the files produced by the second respondent are: (3) By an application dated August 16/17, 1994, the third respondent requested the Board of Film Certification for a certificate under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, (for short 'the Act') to exhibit the film 'Bandit Queen'. The Central Board of Film Certification (for short 'the Board) through a letter of the Regional Office, Bombay, dated September 7, 1994, which was in the nature of a show ca...
Subash Chander Gupta and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT510
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall also govern the disposal of Cwp No. 3488/ 95 M/s. Subhash Chander Gupta & Co. v. MCD; and Cw 4229/95 Shn Puma Nand and eight Others v. MCD. The three petitions raise common questions of fact and. law and have been heard analogously.(2) In Cwp 3686/95 the petitioner has been registered by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Engineering Department) as a contractor Class I, eligible to submit tenders for unlimited amount as a contractor for buildings and roads, vide certificate of registration dated 29.4.94 2.1On 31.8.1995, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Engineering Department) Div. Xxv issued a 'Notice Inviting Tenders, ( hereinafter referred to as the 'NIT') bearing No. Ee XXV/95-95/7, for the following works : '1. Sub. Widening & improvement of approach road to Nizamuddin Railway Station from Mathura Road (Rajdoot Hotel side) S/H: Construction of bridge over Barapulla Nallah. ______________________________________________________________ Tender Ea...
Dwarika Prasad Bahuguna Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ715
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner was a permanent employee of the Delhi Development Authority and bad remained posted for some time as Director (Land Management). The prosecution alleges that he Along with some other employees of the Delhi Development Authority entered into a criminal conspiracy to allot a commercial plot to one Saraswati Devi Dolya and to mate her eligible for such allotment went to the extent of preparing false record first showing her to be in unauthorised possession of some land belonging to the Delhi Development Authority, then showing it as having been resumed and thereafter allotting her some commercial land as an alternative plot. He has thus been charged under section 120B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code besides section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.(2) The petitioner took objection that he could not be prosecuted in the absence of sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The lear...
Sita World Travel (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)671; 62(1996)DLT491; 1996(37)DRJ26
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) By this order I will be disposing of two cross writ petitiions, one filed by the Management and the other filed by the workman impugning the same Award of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Iv, Delhi.(2) The facts giving rise to the present case briefly stated are as under:(3) The workman who is respondent no. 2 in C.W.P. No. 2228/83 and is the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1395/84 had applied for a job of Junior Executive with the Management on 12th October 1976 and was appointed as Junior Executive by the petitioner company with effect from 15th February 1977 by a letter of appointment dated 24th February 1977. He was appointed on probation for three months. Before handing over the letter of appointment it is alleged that the workman was clearly told that he will have to pass a typing test within three months from the date of his appointment and the workman had given an undertaking on 23rd February 1977 confirming that he would clear typing test with a minimum spe...
Sobha Singh and Sons Vs. N.D.M.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)247; 1996(37)DRJ123
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned assessment order fixing the annual rateable value of the Ambassador Hotel at Rs.3,47,11,200.00 less 10% with effect from 1.4.1995. (2) The validity of the impugned assessment order has been challenged on various grounds enumerated in the writ petition. The grounds of challenge are inter-connected and substantially relate to one matter i.e' measure for determination of the annual rateable value of the property in question. However, main grievance of the petitioner is that the taxing authority did not observe the law and failed in its duty to determine the annual rateable value of the property in question in accordance with Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as directed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No-42-44/87 New Delhi Municipal Committee v. East India Ltd. It is further stated that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and as such it is null and void. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a prelimi...
Krishan Lal Arora Vs. Ved Parkash and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)1087; 62(1996)DLT175
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present second appeal arises form the judgment dated January 11, 1984 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which upheld the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 6th August, 1983. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a tenant in respect of the demised premises consisting of one room, kitchen, bath, toilet forming part of property No. 461-462, Nau Ghera, Teliwara, Delhi, which were let out for residential purposes. The eviction petition was filed on the grounds of bonafide requirement as well as for non-payment of arrears of rent since December, 1977 at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per month despite service of demand notice dated August 30, 1979. The family of the respondents comprised of husband, wife (respondents herein), four daughters and three sons. The appellant contended that the respondents did not need the premises bona fide and their main motive was to let out the same for commercial purposes. After the purchas...
M/S. Didi Modes Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Hind Trading and Manufa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi319
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. Thisappeal is directed against the judgment and a decree dated 25th February, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Suit No. 746/81. The plaintiff M/s. Hind Trading and Manufacturing Company has filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the premises in question and for the recovery of license fee and damages. In the plaint, the case set up by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff firm is a Joint Hindu Family partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The appellant company was the defendant in the suit, attorney to the partnership firm by paying license fee. The plaintiff firm had taken a plot B-243, Phase I, New Industrial Area, New Delhi from the President of India on a perpetual lease under the deed dated 18-6-1973 and as such the plaintiff firm is a perpetual lessee of the said plot. After taking the said plot on lease the plaintiff firm constructed the building to run the industry for the purpose of sanitary fittings and casti...
Rai Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)24; 1996CriLJ2259
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The convict appellant (hereinafter referred to as me appellant for the sake of brevity) has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated February 15, 1992 & February 17, 1992. (2) Brief facts which led to the filing of the present appeal are as under : that one Charan Singh (Public Witness 3) resident of village Nanak Hen was sleeping in his house on July 22, 1989 at about 9.001 9.30 p.m. His brother known as Mir Singh (Public Witness 5) approached him and apprised him of the firing at his house by the appellant and in regard to the death of a girl known as Anjani.. On receipt of the said information he immediately rushed to the police station and informed the police. His statement was recorded vide D.D. No. 16A (vide Ex. Public Witness 2/A) by Public Witness 2 Mukhtiar Singh. The said Dd entry was marked to Sho M. S. Yadav (Public Witness 18) for purpose of enquiry. Inspector Yadav Along with Si Gita Ram (PW 17) and other police officers rushed to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »