Delhi Court November 1997 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.
Ms. Deeksha Suri and ors. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Del)576
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This common order shall govern the disposal of 4 civil writ petitions, namely CWP 2796/97, Ms. Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT, CWP 2797/97, Ms. Divya Suri vs. ITAT, CWP 2798/97, Sh. Lalit Suri vs. ITAT and CWP 2299/97, Smt. Jyotsna Suri vs. ITAT. The facts of the four cases and the questions arising for decision therein are common, rather the same, except for a minor deviation on facts in the case of Smt. Jyotsna Suri which would be taken note of at its appropriate place. 2. The facts in brief, which for the sake of convenience are being stated in the succeeding paragraphs from the record of CWP 2796/97 Ms. Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT. 3. All the four petitioners are individuals, the status as contemplated by the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'The Act', for short). They filed their returns of income as under : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Name Date of filing Income declared------------------------------------------------------...
Samrat Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Janaksons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)1085; 70(1997)DLT751; 1997(43)DRJ796
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Defendants 1 & 2 have filed this application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code alleging that the plaintiff filed suit for return of the movable properties as detailed in Annexure-A filed Along with the plaint or in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 1,19,330.00 against defendants 1 & 2 by an order dated December 14,1981, Shri M.L. Jain, Advocate, was appointed as Receiver to take custody of the movable goods in question. By a subsequent order dated December 16, 1981 goods in question were ordered to remain in the godown of defendant No. 3-Bank but in the custody of the Receiver. Receiver was also authorised to dispose of the foods in question and to deposit the sale proceeds thereof with the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited. Amount of the sale proceeds was to be invested in fixed deposit and was to be disbursed as per the orders to this Court. It is further alleged that the aforesaid Receiver filed his report Along with the Bank Draft for Rs. 1,19,330.00 bein...
Deeksha Suri Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)912; 73(1998)DLT75; 1998(44)DRJ120; 1998(102)ELT524(Del); [1998]232ITR395(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This common order shall govern the disposal of 4 civil writ petitions, namely Cwp 2796/97, Ms.Deeksha Suri v. It at, Cwp 2797/97 Ms.Divya Suri v. It at, Cwp 2798/97 Sh Lalit Suri v. It at and Cwp 2299/97 Smt Jyotsna Suri v. IT AT. The facts of the four cases and the questions arising for decision therein are common, rather the same, except for a minor deviation on facts in the case of Smt.Jyotsna Suri which would be taken note of at its appropriate place.(2) The facts in brief, which for the sake of convenience are being stated in the succeeding paragraphs from the record of Cwp 2796/97 Ms.Deeksha Suri v. IT AT.(3) All the four petitioners are individuals, the status as contemplated by the provisions of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter `The Act', for short). They filed their returns of income as under :- NAME Date of filing Income declared Shri Lalit Suri 21/8/1992 Rs.89,490.00 including salary from Bharat Hotels Ltd.(Rs.1,13,400.00 ) Mrs.Jyotsna Suri 28/8/199...
National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Spectrum Power Generation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)141; 69(1997)DLT652
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'NTPC') instituted the suit on the 3rd of August, 1996 praying for the following reliefs : '(A)A decree for specific performance directing the defendant No. 1,2 and 3 to perform their obligations in the Promoters Agreement dated 29.6.1993. (b) A decree for a mandatory injunction to defendant No. 1. To issue and deliver 77.7 lakhs equity shares to defendant No. 1's Company to plaintiff by accepting the plaintiff's contribution for the same. (e) A decree for mandatory injunction to defendant No. 1 to accept the plaintiff's nominee as a Director on their Board. (d) A decree for declaration that the allotment of shares to any person other than defendants No. 2 and 3 are illegal and void. (e) A decree for an injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 14,16,17 and 18 from taking any steps for the execution of the contracts/sub- contract issued to them by defendant No. 1 in re...
Narender Anand Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)585; 1998CriLJ759; 70(1997)DLT458; 1997(43)DRJ561
J.K.Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the parties. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all cases, I am disposing of all these petitions by this common order. (2) The petition arises out of an order of summoning passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on an application of the accused whereby the said order is sought to be recalled by the said Magistrate. The complaints in the present cases arose out of dishonour of ten cheques amounting to a total sum of Rs. 2,06,31,571.00 . It was pointed out that the petitioner No. 3 was a dealer of respondent No. 1 Maruti Udyog Limited under an agreement of dealership and was engaged in sale of various kinds of vehicles, spare parts and also rendering after sale service to the purchasers of vehicles manufactured by respondent No. 1. The said dealership was terminated on 31.8.1994 which am informed, has been challenged by the petitioner by means of a civil suit. (3) The said cheques were issued by the petitioners purporting to be payments b...
Prescast Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT488TriDel
1. The appellants manufactured aluminium castings falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 26A(ii) from aluminium alloy ingots. These ingots were purchased from M/s. Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Phoenix Metals Pvt. Ltd. who in turn manufactured these from waste and scrap purchased from the open market. M/s. Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Phoenix Metals Pvt. Ltd. removed these ingots for supply to appellants without payment of duty claiming exemption under Notification 43/75, dated 1-3-1975. A demand of Rs. 7,34,047.29 for the period 1-9-1983 to 31-12-1983 was issued to the appellants. It was alleged that conditions relating to exemption under Notification 43/75 under which appellants removed castings without payment of duty were not satisfied in their case. Collector (Appeals) on a Revenue Appeal held that the appellants manufactured castings from ingots and not from scrap as stipulated in the notification and, therefore, they were not eligible to exemption.Hence, this Appeal.2. Arguin...
Volga Embroideries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)(76)LC197Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Original dt. 15,1,1997, passed by the Commissioner of Customs-II, New Delhi. By this order, the Commissioner has ordered for confiscation of Embroidery Machines covered under Bill of Entry No. 106797 dated 15.3.1993 and Bill of Entry No. 107131 dt, 26.3.1993 under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. However, he has granted redemption on fine of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported some second-hand textiles embroidery machines declaring the goods as one Saurer IS-55, 10 yarder Embroidery Machines Model 1986 and one Punching Machine Model 1986 vide sales Invoices No. 9201512 dt. 15.12.1992 issue by one M/s. R. Cressy & Son Ltd. U.K. Bill of Entry No. 107131 dt.26.3.1993 was filed through clearing Agent, M/s. Foreign Traders, Delhi at LCD., New Delhi for clearance under Open General Licence a...
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT470TriDel
1. Appellant, a manufacturer, inter alia, of yarn consisting of 48% Polyester, 48% viscose and 4% Flax or Ramie, filed classification list for the same, claiming its classification under sub-heading 5504.22 which was approved by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector later issued a show cause notice asking them to show cause why the said product should not be classified under sub-heading 5504.29. This was replied to by the appellant stating that the goods were classifiable under 5506.29. The Assistant Collector passed his order classifying the yarn under sub-heading 5506.29. The order received by the Collector was felt to be not correct and proper and on his authorisation an application was filed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector contending that the correct classification of the subject yarn was 5504.29 attracting duty of Rs. 26.40 per kilogram. After considering the contentions raised in reply by t...
Railway Equipment Engg. Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT368TriDel
1. By this misc. application, the applicant is seeking early hearing of the appeal on account of issue being of classification of goods and the appellant being a SSI unit. It is contended by them that the item manufactured by them namely C.I. Plates for Emery Mill Stones for domestic flour mills are exempted under Notification No. 56/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995.2. We have heard ld. Advocate. He submits that the unit has now stopped production in view of denial of exemption. It is contended by them that the unit being a SSI they are put to great hardship. He also points out that a number of judgments are in his favour and as the case has got recurring effect and covered by judgments, early hearing may be granted in this matter.4. We have considered the submissions. On a careful consideration, we see merit in the application filed by the appellant for early hearing.In view of the appellant being SSI Unit and the matter having recurring effect and their unit having been closed on account of...
Mentha and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT600TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 29-7-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. The Collector, Central Excise vide impugned order held that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 31/88-CE., dated 1-3-1988 and confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 18,30,444.00 on menthol I.P. under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collector vide impugned order also held that the appellants have contravened the provisions of Rules 52A, 173B, 173C, 173F and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.0 lac on the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of menthols that is menthol ordinary grade and menthol pharmacopoeial grade. Menthol pharmacopoeial grade is bulk drug. Notification No. 31/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 exempts bulk drugs specified under the Table to the Notification from the whole of excise duty leviable thereon and prescribed 5% excise duty on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »