Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. O. N. G. C. as Agent of Foramer ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]70ITD437(Delhi)

ORDERB. M. Kothari, A.M.These two appeals by the revenue are directed against a consolidated order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14-2-1990 for assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The following common ground has been raised in these appeals :-'That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that income was assessable under section 44BB and not as fees from technical services under section 44D of the Act.'2. M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) as Agent of M/s. Foramer, France (non resident) submitted return of income for assessment year 1985-86 on 28-2-1986 declaring total income of Rs. 8,34,750 and for assessment year 1986-87 on 1-12-1986 declaring total income of Rs. 12,66,980. The assessing officer observed that the non-resident company M/s. Foramer, France (FF) had entered into a contract with ONGC for supply of supervisory staff and personnel having expertise in operation and management of drilling rigs 'Sagar Jyoti and 'Sagar...

Beta Nephthol (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT198TriDel

1. Vide Stay Order No. 75/98-C, dated 2-7-1998, the applicants herein was directed to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs towards the duty demand of Rs. 14.56 lakhs and the requirement of predeposit of balance duty and the penalty was dispensed with and recovery stayed. Learned Counsel, Shri Ashuthosh Upadhyay, submits that the financial position of the company has deteriorated further since the passing of the stay order and draws the attention of the Bench to the fact that the Company's application for being declared as a sick unit has been registered by the BIFR. In these circumstances, he prays that the requirement of predeposit of Rs. 3 lakhs may be modified so as to dispense with the requirement of predeposit of any amount of the duty.2. Learned DR opposes the prayer, pointing out that the mere registration of an application with the BIFR does not by itself establish that the company is not in a position to pay even the small amount which has been directed to be predeposited.3. On a careful cons...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mittal Laminates (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT408TriDel

1. Captioned appeal has been filed by the Commissioner assailing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the confiscation of the goods found in excess but upholding the imposition of penalty.2. Shri T.A. Arunachalam, Id. JDR submits that the goods found in excess were in fully finished condition, therefore the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Garden Silk Mills Limited 1992 (51) E.L.T. 373 was not applicable in as much as the goods in that case were in semi-finished condition and were still lying in the factory. He submits that the Commissioner's finding that there was no attempt to remove the goods clandestinely is erroneous. He submits that imposition of penalty further leads to the conclusion that the goods were liable to confiscation and that since the goods were liable to confiscation, therefore, they should have been confiscated as the same were liable to confiscation. He submits that in view of the above submissions, order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals...

India Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC252Tri(Delhi)

2. The appellants herein imported one band knife cutting machine Model STV 376 G.T. (Stationary) and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 16/85-Cus., (SI. No. 35 of Table to Notification) and also claimed the benefit of Exim Policy 1993 Appendix 1, Part B, SI.No. 7(5). The Appellants declared a value of DM 8,100 GIF value. The machine has been confiscated by the Customs authorities of exemption notification has not been extended inasmuch as the machine is a general purpose machine and not merely for garment/hosiery industry. For the same reason the benefit of OGL has been disallowed. The charge of misdeclaration of value of the goods has been upheld on the ground that a slip was found along with the goods indicating price of the goods at 9,530 D.M. as against declared GIF value of 8,100 D.M. The machine has been allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence this ...

D.S. Rana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant impugns the order of transfer dated 2.12.1997 posting him from Intelligence Bureau (in short "IB") Headquarters Delhi to Jaipur. He represented to the authorities stating that he lost his son of 19 years, 3 years back as a result of which his wife has been suffering from mental depression and he has also an old mother of 80 years. He mentioned in his representation that during 29 years of his service in IB, he remained posted out of Delhi for about 17 years and part of this was spent in difficult areas like Leh in Ladhdhak and other border areas of Garhwal District. He further stated that he has to vacate the Government accommodation in the event of his transfer to Jaipur. His representation, was favourably recommended by his superior officers, yet the representation was rejected. It is necessary to mention that soon after his transfer order the respondents considered his first representation and allowed him to continue at Delhi upto 31.3.1998. After the rejection of ...

Ritu Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)176; 77(1999)DLT201

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.1. In the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated the 17th May, 1996 (Annexure-B), passed by the Estate Officer (Slum) v. Slum & J.J. Wing, Municipal Corporation of Delhi in Case No.1/EO (S)/91 and the subsequent order dated the 3rd June, 1997 (Annexure-C), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in appeal bearing No. P.P.A. 175/96 - entitled Smt. Ritu Singh v. M.C.D. & Anr. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially inducted as a tenant in premises bearing No. F-15-X, Jahangir Puri, Delhi by one Shri Manbir Singh, an employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Slum Wing at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. Said Shri Manbir Singh, as per the case of the petitioner, gave an impression and misrepresented to the petitioner that ...

H.L. Saini Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999(81)FLR1007]

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1.The petitioner has filed the above writ petition challenging the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 26.07.1996 on the ground that there was a long delay and the petitioner would greatly prejudiced if the respondent (DDA) is permitted to proceed further on the basis of the charge-sheet. The point raised by the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court and followed by me in P. Bambah Vs . Union of India & Ors. : 74(1998)DLT437 . 2. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The charge-sheet dated 26.07.1996 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. ...

Subhash Chander Chugh Vs. Smt. Anita @ Komal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)737; 77(1999)DLT176; I(1999)DMC247

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The impugned order of the learned District Judge, Delhi was passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the HMA) awarding maintenance pendente lite. The petitioner-wife claimed maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month for herself and her child and Rs. 2,200/- towards litigation expenses. The Trial Court came to a finding that the respondent was working with his father in the business of supplying building material and that the business was carried on through a truck owned by them. The learned District Judge came to a finding that there was no evi-dence that the truck was sold for Rs. 25,000/- or whether it was sold at all. This is one of the grievance raised by the petitioner in the revision petition. However, in my view this is not relevant because whether or not the truck was sold, this has no material bearing on the issue at hand. 2. The learned District Judge assessed the income of the petitionerhusband at Rs. 1,500/- per month and di...

R.S. Mani Vs. S. Ravi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)832; 77(1999)DLT335; (1999)121PLR63

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, CPC for an injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner preventing/obstructing or hindering the plaintiff, his family members or his servants and agents to the peaceful use and occupation of the suit premises on the top floor above the second floor of the property bearing No. D-296, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi, as shown in the plan. The facts in brief are: 2. That the plaintiff was the owner of the plot bearing No. D-296, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi; to re-develop the building on the said plot of land, the plaintiff entered into an agreement on September 9, 1992 with M/s. Ranjeet Combine; in terms of the agreement the Developer was to build the residential dwelling units on the ground, first and second floor and the basement of the building with servant quarters as per the sanctioned plan of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. That in consideration of redeveloping t...

Gurdial Singh Vs. Raghbir Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 76(1998)DLT515; 1998(47)DRJ670

C.M. Nayar, J. 1. The matter was listed for hearing on October 27, 1998 and October 28, 1998 respectively. The petitioner who appears in person has made his submissions. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent on both the dates. 2. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated October 10, 1995 passed by Dr.R.K.Yadav, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which an eviction petition of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the first floor of premises known as A-88, Inderpuri, New Delhi which was let out to the respondent for residential purposes and the suit premises are required by him bona fide for the residence of the family. The petitioner is alleged to have a tenanted property at 111/102, Church Road, Delhi Cantt, Delhi and it is stated that the same is insufficient as the petitioner wants to...