Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Asa Singh Virdi Vs. Asit Kumar Sarkar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(43)DRJ87
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Actual date notice was issued which was duly served on the respondents as per office report. But inspire of service no one put in appearance in the week commencing 6th March, 1995. Earlier also notice was served but none appeared. It is in this background that I do not consider it necessary to serve the respondent afresh.(2) The short point involved in this petition is, whether fresh revised agreed rent or the initial fixed rent would be the determining factor to calculate arrears of rent? The Additional Rent Control (in short the ARC) relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Allied Engineers v. Smt. Harbaksh Gill 1985 RL R 128 held that initial rent would prevail because the mutually agreed rent fixed by the parties thereby refixing the rate of rent at Rs. 950.00 w.e.f. 1st September, 1990 was a periodical increase. Since it was a periodical increase in rent due to the agreement arrived at between the parties hence the petitioner would not be entitled to...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) Vs. Anil Kumar. (Anil K ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Del)340
ORDERJ. P. BENGRA, J.M. :There is an appeal by Revenue and cross-appeal and cross-objection by assessed against single order of the CIT(A) pertaining to asst. yr. 1987-88. Since all these matters arise out of a single order, for the sake of convenience these matters are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The appeal of the Department is barred by limitation for 18 days. However, an application has been given by Department for condensation of delay stating that formerly assessed was being assessed by Dy. CIT, Spl Range, Agra and the same was completed by Dy. CIT(A), Spl. Range, subsequently. The jurisdiction over these cases were transferred to the Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circle, Agra by CIT, Agra. As the assessment in these cases were completed by the Dy. CIT, Spl. Range, Agra, the CIT(A) sent the batch of appellate orders to Dy. CIT, Spl. Range, Agra instead of sending the batch to Dy. CIT, Spl. Range, Agra who is holding the jurisdiction over the Asstt. CIT, Inv. Circle I. There wa...
Saphire Footwear Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: (1997)(71)LC932Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant/applicant herein imported a consignment of goods described as artificial fur and claimed exemption from duty under Notification No. 81/95 and claimed entitlement to import under OGL on the ground that the goods were artificial fur. Examination in the Custom House showed that out of 7 items in the consignment, 3 consisted of artificial fur and 4 consisted of "long piles" and not artificial fur.The Custom House also found a comparable import at a much higher price.Appellant submitted Bill of entry along with an invoice showing the price and also containing a statement that the consignment was being sent free of cost for being used in the production of the supplier's boot uppers. Appellant also submitted the invoice received by his supplier. It was admitted that the freight charges met by the supplier to get the goods from his supplier were US $ 3825.00, but the difference in the price shown in the two invoices was insignificant.When informed about these circumstances, appel...
Collector of Customs Vs. Ganesh Rajah Organisations
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT618TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals).2. The short point to be considered in this case is whether the items stapling pins were to be assessed under heading 83.01/15 (2) as per the department or under heading 73.31 as claimed by the assessee.3. Heard Shri G.D. Sharma, learned JDR for the Revenue. While reiterating the grounds of appeal he submitted that since headings are specific the items in question are correctly classifiable under heading 83.01/15 (2) and not under heading 73.31 as claimed by the party.4. We find that the Collector (Appeals) has held that the items are classifiable under heading 73.31 for the reasons that headings are specific for staples made of iron and steel, following the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Raj Continental Exporters [1991 (54) E.L.T. 140]. We find that for the earlier period, against the order of the Collector (Appeals) the department has come before t...
Shalimar Auto Ancillary Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT479TriDel
1. These three appeals involve common question of law, hence they are taken-up together. The appellants, M/s. Sree Karuna Lorry and Bus Body Bldg. Works and M/s. Shalimar Auto Ancillary Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. made a request to decide their appeal on merits. The appellant, M/s.Vishal Equipments requested for transfer of their appeal to the Madras Bench of CEGAT. The matter is covered, hence, we decline the request for transfer of the appeal to the Madras Bench and decide to take-up the matter on merits.2. The appellants filed their appeals against the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in which he had held that body built motor vehicles cleared by the appellants are covered under Heading Nos. 87.02, 87.03 or 87.04 and the small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 does not cover the body building activities of motor vehicles. The said exemption is not applicable in the case of present appellants.3. Shri M. Jayaraman, SDR appeared on b...
Bharat Electricals Vs. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)342; 1997(1)ARBLR402(Delhi); [1998]91CompCas667(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT223; 1997(41)DRJ43
J.B. Goel, J. 1. This is a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), filed by the petitioner/contractor to restrain the respondent from encashing the bank guarantees Nos. 317 of 1992 to 326 of 1992 and 451 of 1992, to 458 of 1992, issued by the Canara Bank, Janpath, New Delhi, on behalf of the petitioner which are sought to be invoked by the respondent-beneficiary in their letters dated December 20, 1996/December 23, 1996. 2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent is a society which was setting up an office complex for public sector undertakings at Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi. The petitioner was awarded a contract for execution of the work of internal electrification and sub-station work at the said complex. The contract between the parties was executed on October 28, 1988. The total value of the work was Rs. 6,85,62,217.70. The work was to be completed within a period of 20 months, i.e., by the end of June, 1990. The work w...
Satish Kumar Sawhney Vs. Prem Sawhney
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)481; 66(1997)DLT340; 1997(41)DRJ19; (1997)116PLR43; 1997RLR264
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This revision is directed against an order granting interim maintenance to the wife of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act for short) at the rate of Rs. 800.00 per month along with litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 1,500.00 . (2) In this case neither the relationship of husband and wife nor parentage of the daughter of the parties has been disputed. It also appears to be an admitted fact that the revision petitioner was and is working as a commission agent of two firms, viz., M/s. Sawhney Enterprises and M/s.S. Mubarak Ali & Sons since the year 1984-85, He received Rs. 17,824.00 as commission from these firms. Out of this amount as per the husband's claim, he had to spend about Rs. 10.000.00 as traveling expenses on visiting station to station. It has also not been seriously disputed by the petitioner that the respondent wife has no independent source of income. (3) According to the wife/respondent she has no sour...
Kaymes Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M.M. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)606; 66(1997)DLT861
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This revision challenges an order allowing the application for amendment seeking relief of cancellation of draw of lots held on 22nd March, 1992 of the allotment of the flats at Plot No. 3, Block 17, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31. (2) The respondent is a member of the petitioner/Society According to his version, the office bearers of the Society have manipulated the accounts and misappropriated funds of the Society in purchase and sale of the property of the Society. As such, the respondent felt dissatisfied and apprehending that the office bearers of the Society would manipulate the things, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/Society from holding a draw of lots for the allotments of the flats. As the stay was not granted, the draw of lots had taken place on 22nd March, 1992. Hence the need to amend the plaint. (3) The defendant/revision petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule Ii on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 60 a...
Ravi Somani Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)474; 66(1997)DLT137; 1997(41)DRJ2; 1997RLR246
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This petition is directed against dismissal of an application under Section 151 for granting injunction during pendency of an application under o. 39 r. CPC. (2) Firstly, the brief factual matrix. According to the case of the petitioner D.D.A. officials visited the suit property on 7.3.89 and threatened to demolish and then again Dda officials came on 12.4.89 and threatened to demolish the same property bearing No. 3198/1, Ward No. Xv, Mohalla Sangtrashana, Paharganj, New Delhi. It is a wakf property and the plaintiff is lessee in respect of the land on Rs. 50.00 per month. Superstructure thereon belong the plaintiff/petitioner since 1947, as it .was purchased from Dr. Mahinder Singh. It is assessed to house tax in his name, and he has now a lease from Delhi Wakf Board also. D.D.A. has nothing to do with the property. In this context application for injunction has been moved. (3) D.D.A. has delayed in Filing written statement and reply from 14.3.89 till 30.5.89. The...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor and General Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: [1997]227ITR843(Delhi)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, relevant to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1973-74, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that there was a mistake apparent on the record which called for rectification by the Income-tax Officer, under section 154 ?' 2. For the assessment years in question, the original assessments were completed in usual course. After the completion of the assessments, the assessed filed applications under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming deduction of surtax paid by the assessed on the ground that it should have been allowed against the business income of the assessed for all the years under consideration and relied upon the decision of a Bench of the Tribunal in support of the plea that it was an allowable deduction. The Income-tax Officer, however, rejected the applications filed under section 154 of the Act. The order o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »