Delhi Court March 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.
Lakshmi Ishwar Indus. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT36TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed .by M/s. Lakshmi Ishwar Indus., New Delhi, being aggrieved with the common order-in-appeal dated 21-12-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. In para 4 of the order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held as under: I have gone through the facts of the case and find that the appellants' plea with regard to the classification of the ammunition boxes on the ground that they do not contain in them the goods for sale is not tenable, on account of the fact that the ammunition contained in the boxes is primarily meant for certain purposes and its subsequent use or even sale cannot be ascertained. They are containers of base metals and are, as such, rightly classifiable under sub-heading 8312.90, a subheading, identifiable to the products and is created for such products. I find that the Asstt. Collector's interpretation on this issue is correct and based on law. Another plea of the appellants that the appellants were no...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT451TriDel
1. The short point to be considered in the present case is whether HDPE man-made filament twine is classifiable under 18(II)(1) as claimed by the party or under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as per the department. The Bombay High Court has taken the view that the item in question is classifiable under 18(II)(1). The department not being satisfied with the findings given by the Bombay High Court approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP and the same has been dismissed as per CA No. 715/81 with CA No. 11644 and 7564 of 1986, decided on 9-9-1986 as reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.).2. Heard both sides with reference to the issue in question. Shri B.B.Gujral, ld. Counsel drew our attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court in this context. On going through the relevant orders and since the issue has aleady been decided by the High Court and the same has been approved by the Supreme Court, following . the ratio of t...
Gujarat Propack Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT403TriDel
1. This appeal arises from common order dated 20-11-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2 The appellants have also filed supplementary appeals along with COD application. As the supplementary appeals arise from the Order-in-Original which is merged with the impugned order and in view of the prevailing practice, the application for condonation is allowed and the supplementary appeals are taken up for disposal as per law.3. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the appellants are entitled for the benefit of SI. No. 32 of the Notification No. 125/86 which covers for goods falling under Chapter 94 and the SI. No. 32 refers to Multi-layer coater/extruding machine. There is no dispute in these appeals that the item imported is multi-layer coater/extruding machine and on merits it is classifiable under Chapter 84. The lower authorities have denied the exemption of this Notification No. 125/86 on the ground that the goods have...
Sandip Mani (Huf) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)61ITD490(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1987-88 is directed against order of CIT(A) dated October 30, 1991. In the memo of appeal, several grounds are raised, but at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee only pressed ground pertaining to disallowance of Rs. 78,173 under section 32AB.2. Briefly stated facts are that assessee purchased plant and machinery in the shape of coil winding machine an auto lathe machine for a total sum of Rs. 3,79,907. Out of the above amount sum of Rs. 78,173 represented advance made to supplier in the preceding year. On above machine, assessee claimed deduction under section 32AB at Rs. 1,85,737.The Assessing Officer allowed the deduction at Rs. 1,07,564 relying upon the following observation of the Auditor :"13. The amount of deduction permissible in Rs. 1,07,564.96*accordance with the provisions of section 32AB. * This does not include advance amounting to Rs. 78,173.76 given to suppliers for purchase of plant and machiner...
income-tax Officer Vs. President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR420(Delhi)
By The Court 1. This petition filed approximately two years after the making of the order challenges the order of the Tribunal dt. 12th June, 1995, made on application filed by the assessed under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961. Apart from delay and laches, we find that against the impugned order the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing reference application under s. 256 of the Act. The contention is that in the guise of an order under s. 254(2), in fact the impugned order reviews the earlier order made by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has no power of review. If according to the petitioner that was so, it could raise the question of law to that effect. We find no ground to interfere in our writ jurisdiction. 2. Dismissed. ...
Rajinder Singh Vs. A.P. Prabhakaran and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)512; 67(1997)DLT212; 1997RLR344
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The petitioner happens to be an owner of first floor of the house bearing No. D-32, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Respondent No. 1 Mr. A.P. Prabhakaran was inducted as tenant by respondent No. 3 Smt. Kirpa Devi, mother of the appellant. Since the petitioner was working in C.R.P.F. which happens to be a transferable job, he, thereforee, decided to settle his family at one place i.e. in Delhi. Tenanted premises consist of a drawing-cum-dining room, one bed room with attached bath room and a kitchen on the rear portion of the first floor of this house. Petitioner wanted the respondent to vacate this premises as he needed the same for himself and his family. But when the respondent failed to do so he filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) on 30th May, 1990. Family of the appellant consist of himself, his wife, two grown-up daughters and a son. The respondent No. 1 happened to be a close relation of respondent No. 2 Mr. P.K...
Rajender Singh Vs. P.K. Sukumaran Nair
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT585; 1997(42)DRJ175
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Rajinder Singh petitioner herein sought eviction against his tenant of the front portion of the first floor of his property bearing No.D-32, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Eviction was sought because petitioner needed the premises for his bonafide requirement. The Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) after examining the case on merits vide the impugned order dated 29th July,1995 dismissed the petition. So far as material facts which are required to be stated under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) which would entitle him to get an order of eviction are namely (i) ownership of the petitioner (ii) that the premises was let out for residential purpose (iii) The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties (iv) That petitioner has no reasonable suitable alternative accommodation and finally (v) He needs the premises bonafide. So far as ownership, letting purpose and relationship is concerned these facts stood fully satisfied and acc...
B.K. Bhargava Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT625
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners allege that they are the owners of property bearing No. 5048/49, Plot No. Ii, Netaji Subash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi and had let out a portion thereof on the ground floor to Sukhdev Raj Arora, respondent No. 3 under a rent note dated June 25, 1984 (Annexure A) with effect from July 1,1984. Portion let out to respondent No. 3 has been shown in red colour in the site-plan (Annexure B) attached with rent note. At the time of letting, tenanted premises had a Duchhatti/mezzanine floor only in a small portion thereof as shown in brown colour in the said site-plan. (2) In the month of June, 1994 when both the petitioners were out of station, respondent No. 3 made unauthorised construction of a Duchhatti /mezzanine floor in the entire tenanted premises with the height of 6 and damaged at many places the brick wall adjoining the stairs on the front side as well as the walls of the tenanted pr...
Rajesh Gupta Vs. Ajit Prashad Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)872; 67(1997)DLT47
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal by Rajesh Gupta, appellant-plaintiff, is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge on August 9,1996 disposing of two applications, one under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2, Civil Procedure Code (I.A. 3013/96) and the other under Order Xxxix Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code (I.A. No. 3339/96). (2) Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Appellant has filed a suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction against Ajit Prasad Jain and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondents-defendants, inter alia, on the allegations that he is a tenant in respect of shop Nos. 2 & 3 forming part of property No. F-14/17, Model Town-11, Delhi, under respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, who started illegal construction on the rear portion of the said property, is now trying to raise construction on the roof of said shop Nos. 2 & 3 without getting building plan sanctioned from respondent No. 2 and obtaining consent from the appellant. B...
Chander SaIn Berry Vs. Avinash Mithal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)509; 67(1997)DLT208; 1997(42)DRJ44; 1997RLR340
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Dr. Avinash Mithal, respondent/landlord had sought ejectment order against his tenant Dr.Chander Sain Berry, petitioner herein. Dr.Avinash Mithal decided to come back to India from London Along with his wife and settle permanently in his own house. The petitioner herein sought leave to contest the petition, mainly on the ground that the landlord/owner had no intention to settle in India as he was happily settled in London. He wants to sell the house or give the same to a contractor for reconstruction purposes. He does not want to live here. The fact that he has no intention to live in India can be inferred from the fact that his daughters are not interested to come with him to India. They have permanently been settled in United Kingdom. One daughter is married in England. She is a Doctor. Other two daughters after completing their education have taken up work at England. Hence it is only a wish of the petitioner to come to India in order to get the house vacated. He ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »