Delhi Court February 1998 Judgments

K.L. Sehgal Vs. Chairman, State Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)663; AIR1998Delhi404; 1998(46)DRJ60

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. For more than a quarter of a century, the petitioner has been approaching this court for reliefs. There was an order against him passed by the respondents and that was challenged in CW No. 888 of 1974. The same was allowed in 01.08.1986 and the State Bank (1st Respondent) preferred an appeal vide LPA No. 89 of 1986. Eight years thereafter the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner approached the respondents for relief in 1995 asking for implementation of the order passed by this court. In the LPA after the petitioner sent petition claiming relief, the respondents filed CM praying for the following relief:That the order dated 10.03.1995 be modified and the Respondent Sh. K.L. Sehgal be directed to approach and get proper orders from the Income Tax Department;That an order be passed clarifying that the Respondent is not entitled to pay and allowances uptill Scale-V and that he is not entitled to be appointed to the post ...

V.K. Paints Vs. Containers Corpn. of India Ltd

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant imported 60 M. Tonnes Titanium Dioxide Rutile grade TR 92 valued at $ 99.000/- vide invoice dated 23.6.1994 from Singapore. The consignment reached safely at Bombay and was transported to the Inland Containers Depot (ICD) at Tughlaqabad on 7.8.1994. The goods were contained in three containers. At the time of taking delivery, it was found that part of the goods had been pilfered while the containers were in the custody of the opposite party (O.P.). The details of the extent of loss in the three containers together with the price thereon are mentioned in para 10 of the complaint. The complainant claimed indemnification of the amount and having failed to receive the relief filed the present complaint on 27.1.1997 claiming Rs. 7,68,469/- under various heads detailed in para 25 of the complaint. 2. Notice was sent to opposite party under registered cover, the opposite party failed to appear and was proceeded ex-p...

Chinar Exports Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Sahni

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts relevant for these appeals are that the respondent Mr. O.P. Sahni sent 700 shares to the appellant Company for transfer along with transfer deeds on 12.9.1994. The Company did not return the shares duly transferred to the (Complainant. Instead, on 5.6.1995 the Company informed the complainant that there was a dispute between the Company and its Registrar and the latter had withheld the entire records and' that a suit had been filed on the original side of Delhi High Court and interim directions were being obtained to process the case of transfer of shares. 500 shares out of those sent by the complainant were transferred and sent to the complainant in October, 1995. The remaining shares were returned as being fictitious. The opposite party denied that the complainant was covered under the definition of "consumer" under the Act. It was further pleaded that the Company had a dispute with its Registrar and in the absence of the records which were wi...

Suru Chemicals and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT711TriDel

1. These are appeals against the orders of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 16-2-1989 and 19-4-1990.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of the excisable goods, namely, 'Lanolin Anhydrous Commercial' and 'Lanolin Anhydrous I.P.' amongst others. The appellant filed a classification list with effect from 1st March, 1986 classifying the product viz. 'Lanolin Commercial' under 3801.90.However, the A.C. granted his approval to the said list on 28th August, 1986 holding the classification of the said product under sub-heading No. 2913.00 of the Tariff Act and granting slabwise exemption to it under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended and 'Lanolin Anhydrous IP.' also under the sub-heading 2913.00 and granting total exemption to it under Notification No. 234/86-C.E. The Department filed an appeal on the ground that the products namely 'Lanolin Commercial' and 'Lanolin Anhydrous I.P.' were classifiable under sub-hea...

Raj Laxmi Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT374TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Raj Laxmi Enterprises with reference to the Order-in-Original dated 27-8-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad.2. Arguing for the appellants Shri M.P. Devnath submits that whether the appellants are entitled to benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 or not is an issue to be considered in this case. He said that the appellants manufacture metal labels with monograms with the Brand name of Ravi. He submits that the appellants are entitled to benefit in terms of Notification No. 175/86 since their clearances did not exceed the limit as specified therein.The Additional Collector has denied the benefit on the ground that Brand name owner is not eligible for exemption and furthermore in the case of Jay Engineering, reported in 1988 (39) E.L.T. 169 the Supreme Court has held that brand name goes along with the manufactured item.He submitted that Supreme Court has decided the issue with referen...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Adhunik Plastik and Inds. Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT365TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department with reference to the order of Collector (Appeals), Pune, dated 9-3-1992.2. Learned Departmental Representative stated that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Printed Polyethylene Film. They had filed a classification list claiming classification under Heading 49.01 and the Assistant Collector had approved the classification and allowed assessment on the nil rate of duty as claimed. The Department filed an appeal against this order and the Collector (Appeals) had rejected the Department's appeal. Hence, this petition.3. It was his contention that Section Note 2 was required to be taken into consideration and since Chapter 49 is not attracted as observed by the Collector himself, the classification was required to be made under Heading 3920.32. But, the Collector has rejected the Department's appeal.4. Learned Counsel stated that Section Note 2 to Section VII is important for determining whether an item would continue to fall...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Kersons Mfg. Co. of India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC287Tri(Delhi)

1. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 7-2-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, reversing the order-in-original dated 8-3-1989 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik, 2. Respondent, M/s. Kersons Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, filed price list in Part I with effect from 7-12-1987. Entire production of the respondent was being sold to M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (for short, Crompton). Show cause notice was issued alleging that the respondent and Crompton were related persons and, therefore, assessable value for the purpose of computation of duty required to be paid by the respondent should be based on the price at which Crompton was selling the goods to wholesale buyers. Though the respondent resisted the proposal, the Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal. In appeal. Collector (Appeals) held against the relationship set up and...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Bhandari Machinery Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ516

ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Incometax Act, 1961 made at the instance of Revenue seeking opinion of the High Court on the following question of law arising out of the assessment year 1976-77:-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in deleting a sum of Rs.9,964/- being 15% interest paid to the Directors and shareholders of the asses see company, disallowed u/s 40A(8) of the Income tax Act, 1961?' 2. The assessed is a private limited company deriving income from property and also business in purchase and sale of machinery parts. The assessee, during the relevant accounting period made payment of interest amounting to Rs.66,386/- mainly to its directors and shareholders. The Income tax Officer made a disallowance of Rs.9,957/- i.e. 15% of the amount of interest paid by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessed by his letter dated...

Jaspal Kaur Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)265; 1998(44)DRJ507; [1998]232ITR87(Delhi)

ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dated 27.4.95 (Annexure-I) passed by the Appropriate Authority (under the Income-tax Act, 1961) (respondent No.2) and a direction to it to grant 'No Objection Certificate' under Section 269-UL(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act' - for short).2. The property forming subject matter of the petition is plot No.115, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. It is owned by Smt.Anita Surjit Singh, the respondent No.3. On 25.10.89, the respondent No.3 entered into an agreement to sell the plot to the four petitioners herein for a consideration of Rs.15 lacs. On 5.11.89, the petitioners and the respondent No.3 filed a statement (Annexure P-4) under Section 269UC of the Act with the Appropriate Authority, the respondent No.2. On 22/23.1.90 the respondent No.2 passed an order directing the 'filing' of the statement i.e. consigning the same to the record room without any action thereon. The Appropriate Au...

Daily> Bread Bakers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Jagjit Singh Bawa

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)29; 72(1998)DLT104; 1998(44)DRJ722

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant, assailing orders dated 3.12.1988, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') directing the petitioner to deposit/pay rent @Rs.5,000/- per month with effect from 1.8.1984. Petitioner also assails order dated 5.9.1997, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, by which an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner on the ground under Section 14(1)(a) after the petitioner had failed to deposit the rent as directed under Section 15(1) of the Act and after petitioner's defense had been struck off. Petitioner is also assailing the order dated 2.12.1997 of the Rent Control Tribunal by which petitioner was required to pay/deposit, within one week, the arrears of rent and failing which the stay against the order of eviction would stand vacated. Vide order dated 10.12.1997, on petitioner's failure to deposit rent...