Delhi Court March 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.
Kay Foam Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT109TriDel
1. The appellants in this case were manufacturing polyurethane foam blocks. During such manufacture scrap termed as side skin, top skin, bottom skin, shredding, patti, etc. arose. These were sought to be classified under Heading 3915 read with Notification No. 54/88. The assessees also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 on the ground of their being a small scale industry. Later a show cause notice was issued alleging that such sides skin, etc., were not classifiable as waste, parings and scrap under 39.15, but as articles under Heading 3925. If was further alleged that the benefit of Notification 175/86 was not available for PU foam articles. Before the Assistant Collector the assessees cited the Tribunal's judgment in CCE v. Durga Foam Industries reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 723 in which it was held that top skin, bottom skin, side skin, shredding of PU foam cut pieces were classifiable under 3915. Following the ratio of the judgment, the Assistant Collector set aside the...
Balkishan Shokeen Vs. the State of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3020
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that judgment and order dated 9.10.1996 passed by Shri I.C.Tewari, Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.R.No.25/96 whereby orders dated 12.4.1996 passed by Special Executive Magistrate, Delhi in the matter relating to breach of peace under Sections 107 and 111 be quashed.2. The order dated 12.4.1996 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate reads as follows :-'Heard the I.O. I am satisfied from the information received and facts before me and of the view that there are sufficient grounds to proceed u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. against respondents. Issue notice u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. to the respondents. Case to come up.'3. Thereafter on 3.6.1996, the same Special Executive Magistrate passed the following order in the same proceedings.'Respondents are present except No.3 Mrs.Sudha Dahiya, I.O. & P.W. also present. Issue available warrant to No.3 Sudha Dahiya and ordered that they mus...
Mohan Construction Co. Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT12
ORDERS.N. Kapoor 1. This judgment shall dispose of an application under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act and objections against the award is 769/94.2. The relevant facts are as under:2.1 The petitioner entered into a contract agreement for construction of '560 MIG houses at Pitampura, Pkt A(P) including internal development SH:192 MIG Houses Grp.III. The contract agreement contained an arbitration clause. Certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. In terms of Arbitration clause, R.C. Malhotra, respondent No.2 was appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes. Mr. Malhotra published his award on 29th April 1993.2.2 The award has been filed. Notice of filing the award was served on petitioner/claimant on 20th December 1993 and on the respondent on 3rd January 1994. The objections have been filed by the respondent vide is 769/94 on 22nd January 1994. The objections are obviously within time.3. I have heard parties counsel and gone ...
Sachdeva and Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Syrian Arab Republic
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)481; 72(1998)DLT755; 1998(46)DRJ793
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for restraining defendant No. 3 from making payment to defendant No. 4 against the bank guarantee bearing No. FHKA/230-KA77650z/LZR dated 22.4.97 and also for restraining defendant No. 2 from making payment to defendant No. 3 against bank guarantee No. AHB/EPG/1/97 dated 15.4.1997 and 18.4.1997 executed by defendant No. 2 in favor of defendant No. 3. In this connection I.A. 8866/97 under O. 39, R. 1 & 2 has been filed.2. The plaintiff - a private limited company - responded to a call for quotation No. SR/69 dated 3.2.1997 vide its quotation dated 3.3.1997. M/s. Syrian Arab Republic (General Foreign Trade Organisation for Chemicals and Foodstuffs GEZA), Damascus, unequivocally confirmed the quotation of the plaintiff vide fax No. SR/127. It is stated that the quantity of 12,000 M. Tons +/- 5% at the seller's option was essence of the agreement and could not be altered unilaterally. The value of the entire contract was settled at US $...
C.S. Mathur Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)550; 1998(45)DRJ450; [1999]235ITR769(Delhi)
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The petitioner is a chartered accountant engaged in providing professional services to various Indian and foreign clients. Services to foreign clients are provided in terms of the agreement entered into from time to time. The petitioner entered into agreements with Mannesman A.G., Germany on 15.2.1990 and with Fried Krupp GMBH, Germany on 8.4.1991. These agreements have been renewed from time to time. The relevant clause in the agreements entered into with the two companies is identical in terms. It is as under :-Consultant (i.e. petitioner) shall provide to Mannesman/Krupp from time to time advice, information on finance, industrial, business and economic matters relating to India as would be useful to Mannesman/Krup and its affiliated company in relation to its business investment in India.2. Each of the two companies agreed to pay a fee of DM 16000 per year in consideration of the services provided by the petitioner.3. The petitioner was granted approval under...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)933; 72(1998)DLT552; 1998(45)DRJ1
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. On 23.11.1992, the Revenue moved an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making a prayer to the Tribunal to state for the opinion of the High Court the following two questions of law arising out of the appellate order dated 23.11.1992 :-1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in upholding CIT(A)'s direction to allow investment allowance to the assessed company ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that the assessed company carrying on job work of insulation is engaged in the manufacture or production of article or thing 2. By order dated 4.10.1993, the Tribunal rejected the application. The Tribunal has not expressed any opinion whether the questions sought to be referred are the questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. It has referred to CBDT's circular No. 319/11/87 dated 14.7.1987 according to which the Depar...
R.N. Jindal Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)857; 72(1998)DLT596
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner joined Delhi Judicial Service on 13.3.1973. He was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate in Shahdara Courts at Karkardoma when on 31.1.1987 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary departmental proceedings. He was served with charge sheet (Annexure A) on 4.4.1987. After considering the reply dated 25.4.1987, Shri Justice N.N. Goswami was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to enquire into five separate charges, inter alia, of tampering of judicial record and making of false representation to the High Court. Inquiry Officer on 16.4.1988 submitted his report holding charges 1, 2, 4 & 5 to have been proved and charge 3 as not proved. The Full Court considered the report of Shri Justice Goswami and concurred with his findings on all the charges and made recommendation to respondent No.1 of petitioner's removal from service. The first respondent namely, the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi, on going through the r...
Sanjiv Kakkar Vs. Shri L. Kumar and Five Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)945; 72(1998)DLT673; 1995(45)DRJ304
ORDERJ.B.Goel, J. 1. By this judgment, the following preliminary issue framed in the suit is being disposed of. Preliminary Issue: 'Whether the suit is not barred by rest judicata in view of decision in Suit No. 28/67 affirmed finally by the Supreme Court on 17th July, 1984? (OPP)'2. When this suit was filed on 12.3.1980, the - plaintiff was a minor and the suit on his behalf was filed through his maternal grandfather Shri Brij Raj Krishna Tandon, as his next friend. On attaining majority the plaintiff has elected to pursue the suit and the plaint was amended and the aforesaid Mr. Tandon was transposed as defendant No. 7. 3. In this suit, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the decree for specific performance passed in Suit No. 28/67 by a learned Single Judge, affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench and further appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14.7.1984, is illegal, invalid and not binding on him, besides injunction against its enforcement. By that decree suit for specific pe...
Kyrie Chand Tarawati Charitable Trust Vs. the Director of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)988; 72(1998)DLT726; 1998(45)DRJ122; [1998]232ITR11(Delhi)
ORDERR.C.Lahoti, J.1.The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.2.1997, Annexure-1, passed by Director Income-tax (Exemption) New Delhi whereby the petitioner's application dated 16.9.1996 seeking renewal of the recognition of the petitioner Trust under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the period commencing 1.4.1996 has been refused. 2. M/S Kirti Chand Tarawati Charitable Trust (hereinafter, 'the Trust'- for short) is the trust created and settled by Kirti Chand Aggarwal vide deed of trust dated 8.10.1981, (Annexure-2). It cannot be denied that the aims and objects of the Trust as set out in the deed dated 8.10.1981 are charitable. Construction of a religious temple is not one of the objects set out in the deed of trust. Vide order dated 29.7.1993 (Annexure-4) the Director of Income-tax ( Exemption) allowed recognition under Section 80G of the Act for the period 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1996 entitling allowability of deduction under section 80G to the donations made to the Trust....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Del)319
R.C. Lahoti, J.On 23-11-1992, the revenue moved an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making a prayer to the Tribunal to state for the opinion of the High Court the two questions of law arising out of the appellate order dated 23-11- 1992:1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding Commissioner (Appeal)s direction to allow investment allowance to the assessed company2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that the assessed Company carrying on job work of insulation is engaged in the manufacture or production of article or thing'?2. By order dated 4-10-1993, the Tribunal rejected the application. The Tribunal has not expressed any opinion whether the questions sought to be referred are the questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. It has referred to CBDT's Circular No. 319/11/87 dated 14-7-1987 according ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »