Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments

P.C. Sharma and Co. Vs. D.D.a

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT702

K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The Arbitrator had passed the award on 19-5-1994 in favor of the claimant M/s. P. C. Sharma & Co. and against the Delhi Development Authority. The Delhi Development Authority has filed the objections. The contract between the claimant and the Delhi Development Authority was for the construction of 840 DUs under S.F.S. in Pocket-VIII, Section-C at Vasant Kunj. S.H. 64 Cat. III, Cat. II and 80 scooter garages i.e., internal development Group II, Disputes arose between the parties and they were referred for adjudication. 2. In Claim No. 1 the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 21,985.00 on account of refund of rebate deducted for payment of monthly bill without fulfillling the contingent condition. The Arbitrator had stated the claim of the claimant in the following terms : Respondents had accepted claimants' condition regarding offer of rebate of 0.25% on estimated cost of word for making monthly payments provided the gross value of the work done in any month was not...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manoranjan Pictures Corporation (P) Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1998Delhi97

D.K. Jain, J.1. The Tribunal has, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act'), the following questions for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 62,500 was a capital receipt 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative then was the Tribunal right in holding that the amount of Rs. 62,500 was not assessable under s. 45 of the IT Act, 1961, as capital gains ?' 2. The case relates to the asst. yr. 1971-72 for which the relevant previous year ended on 31st December, 1970. The assessed is an incorporated company engaged in the business of exhibition of cinematographic films. It signed agreements with the producers of three films namely, 'Saheli', 'Sagaai' and 'Aaye Din Bahar Ke' for their distribution, exhibition and exploitation in the territories of Delhi and UP. On 1st September, 1965, it entered into a partnershi...

Binani Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 67(1997)DLT314; 1997(42)DRJ124

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The arbitrator Shri R.N. Mishra has made and published the award on October 29, 1986. By means of I.A. No. 3023/87 this award has been challenged by the petitioner.(2) On May 12, 1966, M/s. Metal Distributors Limited and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement by virtue of which Metal Distributors Limited was to supply tin ingots to respondent No. 1. M/s. Metal Distributors Limited, pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation and the order dated November 23, 1983 of the Calcutta High Court and order dated October 26, 1983 of the Bombay High Court, was amalgamated with the petitioner M/s. Binani Metals Limited. Due to the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 the matter was referred for the adjudication of the above said arbitrator on a direction from this Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator, as pointed out above, made and published his award on October 29, 1986. The award has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground t...

Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (Delhi) Vs. Central Bureau of Invest ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)780; 1997CriLJ3242; 66(1997)DLT748; 1997(41)DRJ718

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by a private party, namely, People's Union for Civil Liberties (hereinafter referred to as PUCL) against the order of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed in a case which has come to be commonly referred to as St. Kitts conspiracy case, discharging Satish Sharma and R.K. Dhawan two of the accused on the ground that no case was made out against them. Charges were framed against rest of the accused persons. It may be noticed that tins very Pucl had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for intervention but their request was declined. Instead the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed an amices curiae and allowed the parties to render assistance to Mr. Anil Dewan, the said amices Curiae. Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the application for intervention passed the following order: 'WE do not consider it appropriate to permit any intervention in this matter. Shri Anil Dewan has been requested by us to appear as amices ...

Vinod Kumar and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)965; 1997(3)Crimes94; 67(1997)DLT105

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) I have heard the parties. In the present case, the challenge to the impugned order is only that having once dismissed the application for cancellation of bail, the Trial Court was not left with the jurisdiction, review its order and to restore the said application. The Counsel submits, that the reasons for restoration are also erroneous. The reason given in the order mainly is that in order to adjudicate upon the application under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, the application for cancellation of bail should be kept alive. This reason does not appear to be well founded in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amuanullah Quareshi v. Union of India, : 1992CriLJ2781 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with approval has quoted its observations in the case of K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Worrier, reported as (1978) 2 Scc 18, which read as under: 'AT an enquiry held by the Court under Section 304(1), Criminal Procedure Code irrespective ...

Sipani Automobiles Vs. Bimala Devi and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This is an application in Revision Petition No. 45/96 which was disposed of by order dated 27.8.96 by this Commission seeking certain modifications. In order to understand the prayer made in the present application, he may briefly mention the background facts. A large number of persons booked Montana Cars which were being manufactured and had been offered for sale by M/s. Sipani Automobiles through various dealers appointed by them. The booking amount was Rs. 10,000/-per car. The various persons cancelled the order for booking and demanded refund of the booking amount alongwith interest. Having failed to receive the amount, they instituted separate complaints before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaints and directed refund of the booking amount together with the interest at the stipulated rate of 7% upto date of cancellation and 18% from the date of cancellation upto date of payment besides Rs. 2,000/-as costs. The order of the District ...

P.C.C. Pole Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT325TriDel

1. Appellant on receipt of notice of hearing requests for adjournment of appeal by three weeks for preparation of the case. The appeal has been pending for nearly 8 years, we do not think at this belated stage appellant is justified for asking of adjournment for three weeks. The request for adjournment is rejected. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, SDR and perused the papers.2. The appellant is a factory belonging to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board engaged in the manufacture of PCC Poles for the use by the Board in laying electric lines. Appellant had filed price lists declaring value on the basis of costing, that is, cost of raw materials plus cost of manufacture and the same had been approved. Duty had been paid on such valuation. Subsequently it was noticed that notional margin of profit was not being included in the assessable value. Hence show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to add 10% as margin of profit and proposing demand of differential duty in respect...

Capt. Harminder Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)62ITD78(Delhi)

1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi, dt. 31st October, 1994, on the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) XXII, New Delhi has erred : (a) in holding that out of total allowance of Rs. 90,169 drawn by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 60,169 was taxable and only a sum of Rs. 30,000 was exempt under s. 10(14)(ii). (b) in not treating the said allowance as exempt under Notification No. 143(E), dt. 21st February, 1989 issued under s. 10(14)(i). 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the learned CIT(A)-XXII has on the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in not treating as exempt even the allowances as were similar to those declared as exempt by the CBDT in their communication No. 133/118-90 TPL, dt. 30th March, 1990 addressed to Air India, Bombay".2. Brief facts in this case are that the assessee filed return of income at Rs. 1,24,280 and the same was processed under s. 143(1...

Nath Bros Exim. International Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)1025; AIR1997Delhi383; 67(1997)DLT458

D.K. Jain, J. (1) The challenge in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is to the validity of the public notice issued and published in various newspapers on 30 April, 1994, by the Textiles Committee, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12 of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963 (as amended) (for short the Act). (2) The Textiles Committee, (constituted under Section 3 of the Act), in the stated notice, directed all the manufacturer exporters of silk ready made garments to pay to the Committee the amount of cess at 0.05% ad valorem from 1975 calculated on the basis of the Fob value of the shipping bills as contemplated under Section 5A(1) of the Act. As pet the notice the cess due on the basis of Fob valve of the silk garments meant for export is required to be paid at the time of obtaining the endorsement for quota and non-quota purposes. Procedure for endorsement is also indicated therein. The notice also holds out a warning that if any manufacturer fails to pa...

Dharam Pal and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT244

S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) Being aggrieved by the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioners to face trial under Sections 498-A/304-B, Ipc, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order of summoning alleging inter alias that, firstly, there was no evidence before learned Additional Sessions Judge to form an opinion that a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners and secondly, even assuming such a material was available on the police record, the Additional Sessions Judge could not summon the petitioners by invoking powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short referred to as 'the Code') without recording evidence during trial.Before dealing with the contentions of the respective parties, let me first give a few facts which are relevant for deciding this petition.(2) One Kusum, the deceased, was married to Radhe Shyam on 16/04/1990. The petitioners are the brothers of Radhe Shyam. The petitioners live separatel...