Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

State Bank of India Vs. Prem Dass and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi49

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff-bank is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its central office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Bombay. One of the branches of the plaintiff-bank is situated at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. S.K. Burman, Manager (SIB) and Principal Officer posted at Chandni Chowk Branch is competent to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff-bank under the General Regulations No. 76-77 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955, made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of Central Government read with the notification published in the Gazette of India dt. September 26, 1959 and August 26, 1972. Defendant No. 1 was granted Rs. 1,36,000/- by way of Medium Term Loan for purchase of a bus on June 20, 1979, on his agreeing to pay interest on the amount so advanced @ 2% below the S...

D. K. Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)587

ORDERN. S. CHOPRA. A.M. :This appeal is directed against order dt. 30th November, 1996, passed by the AO, i.e., Dy. CIT, Spl. Range 24, New Delhi, under s. 158BC (c) of the IT Act for the block period from asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1996-97 (1st April, 1985 to 17th November, 1995) pursuant to action under s. 132(1) of the Act taken against the appellant on 17th November, 1995. In response to notice issued by the AO under s. 158BC (a), the appellant-assessee declared nil income. Against this the AO computed assessees income at Rs. 2,97,16,770 with tax liability @ 60 per cent thereof at Rs. 1,78,30,062. The appellant is engaged in the business of real estate, including builders and developers besides financing business. The sources of income include income from house property and other sources.2. The assessed has challenged the validity of the assessment and has also contested all the additions aggregating to Rs. 2,97,16,770 as under :(a) Unaccounted payments 1,50,000 (Para 5 of Asstt. Order)...

Laxmi Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT428TriDel

1. Since the issue for determination before us in these three appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the three appeals are that the appellants were eligible for the exemption up to Rs. 30 lakh on the first clearance in terms of Notification No. 1 /93. The appellants instead of availing the facility of exemption up to Rs. 30 lakh started paying duty and availed credit of duty paid on the inputs under the Modvat scheme. The department alleged that the benefit of Modvat scheme could not be availed of by the appellants in view of the Rule 57C. Accordingly the appellants were asked to explain as to why the amount of credit of duty taken by the appellants should not be disallowed to them and why the amount equivalent to the credit already utilised should not be recovered from them under Rule 57-I. The appellants submitted that Rule 57C restricts the taking of credit only when the final product was exempt. The appellants a...

Hindustan General Inds. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT382TriDel

1. In this appeal M/s. Hindustan General Industries Limited, Delhi have sought the setting aside of the order of the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi dated 30-9-1993 to the extent the said order directed remand of their case to the Deputy Collector and also setting aside of the penalty imposed by the Deputy Collector on steel ingots on the ground of non accountal by them of the same in their RG 1 Register.2. Appellants are suppliers of LPG gas cylinders manufactured by them to the big oil companies after getting specific orders from them. They have stated that LPG cylinders being highly delicate and sensitive items, even the requisite valves needed to be fitted in the cylinders were supplied by the oil companies themselves. Besides, the procedure for manufacture is also subject to rigorous conditions. First of all, the requisite raw material of specific type of steel sheets is obtained from steel manufacturing companies in accordance with specifications given by the oil comp...

Rapicut Carbides Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT340TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Rapicut Carbides Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal No. 6/AMP/777/DB-241/88, dated 17-10-1988 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. It is seen that the appellants had filed one appeal against the said Order-in-Appeal and two separate numbers had been given to the same appeal. As two separate numbers had been given to the same appeal, the present order will dispose of both the numbers.2. The matter relates to the applicability of exemption Notification No. 216/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 to the period from 1-3-1986 to 1-4-1986 by virtue of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Tungsten Powder, which was classifiable under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff prior to 28-2-1986. In these proceedings, we are concerned only with that part of the Tungsten Powder, which was used captively by the manufacturer in their own factory for the manufacture of Tool...

Klm Royal Dutch Airlines Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is a batch of 14 appeals filed both by the assessee and the Revenue against common order, dt. 28th August, 1996, of the learned CIT(A) disposing of assessee's appeals against order of the AO under s.201(1) of the IT Act. The second batch of 7 appeals is also against order, dt. 28th August, 1996 of the learned CIT(A) disposing of assessee's appeals against AO's order under s. 201(1A) of the Act.While the assessee has filed appeals against individual financial years, the Revenue has filed one appeal against order under s. 201(1) combining all the assessment years and similarly one appeal has been filed combining all the assessment years against order under s.201(1A). The appeals having been heard together are disposed of by this common order. First we will dispose of appeals against order relating to s. 201(1). The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee for all the financial years are common and relate only to the order of the learned CIT(A) holding that the amount reimbursed t...

Harinder Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT30

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present judgment will dispose of the objections filed by the respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to the Award dated May 15,1992. (2) The petitioner was awarded the work for development of urban village Khichripur and for construction of Community Hall/Bart Ghar. An agreement was executed between the parties bearing No. 35/EE/DDX/84-85. The name of the work was 'Development of Urban Village Khichripur SH: Community Hall/Bart Ghar'. The disputes arose between the parties and it was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner/claimant could not successfully complete work as per the scheduled time and, accordingly, the contract was rescinded on February 2, 1987 by the respondent. The respective claims and counter claim of the parties were referred to Arbitrator Shri Om Prakash who published the Award dated May 15, 1995 and filed the same Along with the proceedings in this Court. (3) Notice was issued to the parties directing them to file...

Jaipal Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT27

K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Jai Pal Singh-plaintiff has filed suit, inter alia, on the allegations that he is the owner and in possession of property consisting of. factory shed, two rooms, one kitchen, one toilet, one meter-room and the open courtyard comprised in Khasra No. 63, measuring 750 sq. yards situated within the Laldora Abadi of Village Holambi Khurd, Delhi. In the year 1982 Smt. Anita Kumari, defendant No. 2 was married to Vijay Kumar, defendant No. 1 - Since the inception of marriage defendant No. 1 had been pressurising defendant No. 2 to bring some money and articles from the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 had an evil eye on the property of the plaintiff and in furtherance of his illegal designs he hatched a conspiracy in collusion with defendant No. 2 and made her to execute two sale deeds dated October 14, 1996 in respect of aforesaid property of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is neither the owner nor in possession of the said property. She was even denied Laldora Certificate by th...

Murli Dhar Dua and ors. Vs. Shashi Mohan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 68(1997)DLT284

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) Petitioners have Filed this petition under Order Xxxiii, Cpc for permission to sue the respondent as indigent persons in suit for recovery of possession of immovable/movable properties and also the mesne profits. It is, inter alia, alleged in the petition that Madan Mohan, who expired on July 4, 1996, appointed the petitioners as trustees in respect of the estate left behind by him under the Will dated April 23, 1995. According to the Will property No. 8-2/187, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and movables owned by aforesaid Madan Mohan were conditionally bequeathed by him in favor of his son Lalit Mohan with the stipulation that if before the end of the year, 2001 he did not have any issue born to his wife or any child and being legally adopted by them, all the assets including the immovable property were to be disposed of as soon as possible by the petitioners as trustees and invest the complete income accruing there from as donation for charitable purpose either as one tim...

Ramesh Chand Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Del)268

ORDERN. S. Chopra, AM:This is a batch of 14 appeals filed both by the assessed and the Revenue against common order, dt. 28th Aug., 1996, of the learned CIT(A) disposing of assessor's appeals against order of the AO under s. 201(1) of the IT Act. The second batch of 7 appeals is also against order, dt. 28th Aug., 1996 of the learned CIT(A) disposing of assessor's appeals against AO's order under s. 20WA) of the Act. While the assessed has filed appeals against individual financial years, the Revenue has filed one appeal against order under s. 201(1) combining all the assessment years and similarly one appeal has been filed combining all the. assessment years against order under s. 201(1A). The appeals having been heard together are disposed of by this common order. First we will dispose of appeals against order relating to s. 201(1). The grounds of appeal taken by the assessed for all the financial years are common and relate only to the order of the learned CIT (A) holding that the am...