Delhi Court November 1998 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.
G.J. Malik Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Deptt., New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)534; 78(1999)DLT31; [1999]238ITR496(Delhi)
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 31.10.96 (Annexure R-6) passed by the Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department, New Delhi whereby the statement in Form-37 I filed on 31.7.96 in respect of proposed transfer of immovable property has been held to be not maintainable and deemed never to have been filed. 2. The immovable property forming subject matter of the proceedings is A-21 Nizamuddin (West) New Delhi. On 3rd January, 1996 the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favor of M/s.Seraveall Resorts and Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.2.60 crores. The building is a two-and-a-half storeyed house. The relevant recitals of the agreement are briefly enumerated in the succeeding paragraphs.2.1 On September 12, 1995 the intending Vendor had taken a loan of Rs.65 lacs from the intending Vendee and had agreed to pay back the same without interest by December 31, 1995 which the Vendor failed to repay. It was agreed th...
Swastik Rubber Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC348Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. is whether the cost of end fittings /couplings /flanges is to be included in the value of the Rubber hoses for the purpose of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.2.1 Shri S. Shivadass, ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants cleared more than 90% of the hoses in bare condition on payment of duty on the value of hoses. They received orders from customers, mostly public sector undertakings, for supply of rubber hoses fitted with end fittings/couplings. They used to send hoses to the job workerss ho attached the end fittings to the bare hoses and sent them back to the appellants. They paid duty only on the value of bare hoses. They used to prepare t o invoices - one for the bare hose and the other for coupling or fittings. A show cause notice dated 25-8-1992 as issued to them for demanding differential duty amounting to Rs. 12,04,581.32 for the period from 29-5-1987 to 21-5-1992 in respect of hoses fitted w...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Multipiex Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT374TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the inclusion of the value of the plastic cap while arriving at the assessable value of the aluminium collapsible tubes. The respondents are M/s. Multiplex Packaging Pvt. Ltd. The respondents have prayed for decision on merits. In their written submissions they have referred to the Tribunal Final Order Nos. 332-333/97-A, dated 25-2-1997 in their own case while disposing of the two appeals bearing Nos. E/3594/87-A and E/4394/89-A. The Tribunal had accepted the plea of the assessee that the cost of bought out plastic caps was not includible in the assessable value of the aluminium collapsible tubes. While arriving at their decision, the Tribunal has relied on their earlier decision in the case of the Col-Tubes (P) Ltd. v C.C.E., Indore as reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 342 (Tribunal).2. Shri K. Srivastava, Id. SDR appearing for the appellant Revenue referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v....
Radhey Shyam Gupta and Another Vs. Kamal Oil and Allied Industries Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas337(Delhi); ILR1998Delhi903A
ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, J.1. A petition filed by the Appellant under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') against Kamal Oil and Allied Industries Ltd. (for short 'the Company') and other respondents having been dismissed by learned single Judge, this appeal has been pre-ferred. By the impugned judgment dated 7th February, 1984, the learned single Judge has held that considering the averments in the written statement there is serious dispute between the parties as to whether the shares in favor of appellants were transferred rightly and validly in accordance with Section 108 of the Act and that the decision of such a question is clearly beyond the scope of Section 397 and/or 398 of the Act and the remedy of the party lies in approaching a Civil Suit. The petition was held not to be maintainable and was accordingly dismissed.2. The facts in detail have been noticed in the judgment under appeal and we don not think if necessary to again notice herei...
Delhi Municipal Worker Union (Regd.) Vs. the Management of M.C.D . and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ856Del
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioners challenge an award dated 4.12.96 of the Industrial Tribunal No. III, Delhi by which it was held that the dispute referred to it for adjudication was not an industrial dispute and hence the tribunal could not adjudicate upon the reference.2. The first petitioner, Delhi Municipal Workers Union is stated to be a registered trade union with the aims and objects, among other things of promoting and protecting the interest, rights and privileges of the employees working in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, securing just and better working condition for them, and extending assistance in the case of illness, unemployment old age and death etc. The second petitioner is Shri Jai Singh S/o late Shri Bali who died in harness while working as Balder in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The third petitioner Smt. Rukman is the widow of late Shri Bali and the mother of Shri Jai Singh. The respondent are the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Presiding Offi...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Engineers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT376TriDel
1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri Nunthuk, Id. DR. In terms of earlier order of the Bench, the intimation had been served.The respondents were, however, not present. The assessees manufactured switches. Effecting certain clearances under the benefit of Notification 160/86, dated 1-3-1986. Vide show cause notice dated 4-3-1987, it was alleged that the benefit of the notification was not available and on this count, differential duty was chargeable. The Assistant Collector observed that the notification excludes from its coverage switches, plugs, sockets etc. The goods cleared being the same, the benefit was not available. The assessees then filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) observed that such products were earlier classified under T.I. 61. He held that the department themselves had clarified by certain Trade Notices that under T.I. 61, only those switches would fall which were directly proximate to the lighting points and those which were not so placed, would fa...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Supreme Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT441TriDel
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by the Revenue is whether SWR Pipes and fittings manufactured by the respondents are classifiable under Heading 39.17 as decided by the Collector (Appeals) or under Heading 39.25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as urged by the Department.2. Shri H.K. Jain, Id. SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal contained in the appeal memorandum according to which Gutters and Fittings thereof are nothing but builders ware of plastics and are to be classified under sub-heading 3925.99.3. Shri B.N. Rangwani, Id. Consultant submitted that the issue regarding the classification of Gutter Fittings has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in the respondent's own case vide Final Order No.494/98-C, dated 29-6-1998. He also mentioned that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal has also referred to the impugned order-in-appeal.4. We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is settled by the Tribunal's Final Order dated 29-6-1998 in which ...
Siddeshwar Textile Mills (Pvt.) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT368TriDel
1. The issue to be decided in this case is whether cotton fabrics heavily sized but not having permanent stiffness is classifiable under GET Chapter heading 52 or under Chapter 59 and it is the case of the assessees that the product falls for classification under Chapter 52 while the department has held it under Chapter 59.2. On hearing Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate and Shri R.S.Sangia, learned DR, we agree that the issue has been settled by the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 522 (T) (20) RLT 850 (CEGAT-SB) in which the Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessees for classification under Chapter 52. In doing so, they relied upon the case of Sunita Textiles Ltd. reported in [1993 (67) E.L.T. 932]. Following the ratio of the above order, we uphold the assessee's claim under Chapter 52.06, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal....
Shanti Devi and Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT182; 1999(48)DRJ344
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners entered into a contract with the respondent No.1 for execution of the work of construction of 900 SFS houses at Sarita Vihar. During the execution of the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the parties and accordingly arbitration agreement contained in the said contract was invoked. The respondent No.1 appointed respondent No. 2 as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes arising between the parties. During the aforesaid proceedings before the arbitrator the predecessor-in-interest Shri O.P. Sharma expired on 6.2.1991 and the petitioners were brought on record. The arbitrator, after hearing the parties and after receiving evidence made and published his award on 15.11.1991. The said award was filed in this court, on receipt of which objections have been filed by the respondent No.1. By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of the said objections filed by respondent No.1 a...
Kedar Nath Vs. Ram Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)409; 1(1999)CLT1; 1999(48)DRJ589; (1999)121PLR29; 1999RLR45
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. 'The rules and the principles of case law have never been treated as final truths, but as working hypotheses, continually retested in great laboratories of the law, the Courts of justice. Every new case is an experiment; and if the expected rule which seems applicable yields a result which is felt to be unjust, the rule is reconsidered' said Cordozo (The Nature of The Judicial Process,p.23). It is this philosophical approach to rule of law which has persuaded two learned single judges of this Court seeking resolution of conflict in judicial opinion on a point of frequent recurrence before the courts of law. This is how three matters are before the Full Bench.2. SAO 276/79 is an appeal preferred by a landlord who has lost his eviction petition from the Court of the Rent Controller and also from Rent Control Tribunal in appeal. One of the grounds of eviction pleaded by the landlord was that the defendant had constructed a house at Golf Links New Delhi. In the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »