Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments

Samey Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)721; 1998(3)Crimes35; 73(1998)DLT238

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The appellant was initially charged for an offence under section 376, IPC. but ultimately the trial court convicted the appellant under section 376 read with section 511 IPC.The brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated in the succeeding paragraphs:-2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, the prosecutrix and her family lived in the same building. The appellant worked with the father of the prosecutrix in the Delhi Milk Scheme. The prosecutrix was about 6 years of age at the time of this unfortunate incident. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.9.1975, when the prosecutrix was alone in her apartment, the appellant approached and asked her to bring a bidi packet for him but she declined. Thereafter, the appellant took her to his room and opened by her pyjama and had sexual intercourse with her. The prosecution story further reveals that there was bleeding from her vagina and her pyjama became blood stained and the accused...

Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. Vs. Nangia Constructions (In ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT733

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, named above, has filed the present petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 averring that the Ministry of Posts, Telegraphs & Telephone, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (PTT) awarded the work for outside plants, construction, installation, supply of materials and equipment etc. In Dammam (Saudi Arabia)' to Abdul Aziz Zaidan & Partners (hereinafter referred to as 'BETA'), a Company, incorporated in Saudi Arabia. A contract agreement dated the 14th February, 1985 was signed between PTT and BETA. The petitioner further awarded the sub-contract to the respondent on back to back basis and a sub-contract agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent on 21.3.85. The sub-contract agreement, executed between the parties, contained an arbitration clause to the following effect:'If any dispute or difference arises in connection with the M...

Chawla Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT719TriDel

1. The appellant M/s. Chawla Trading Co. have prayed for decision on merits.2. The matter relates to the classification of the yarn produced out of the polyester waste. The yarn so produced out of polyester waste had slubs. The appellant classified the same under sub-heading No. 5606.00 of the Central Excise Tariff which covered the following: "Other special yarns, including gimped yarn and strip, chenille yarn [including flock chenille yarn]." 2. The Revenue has classified the same under Heading 55.04 which covers yarn [including sewing thread] of synthetic staple fibres.3. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. JDR and have gone through the facts on record.4. We find that under Chapter 55 among others yarn including sewing thread of synthetic staple fibre were classifiable. Chapter 56 of the Tariff covers wadding felt and non-wovens; special yarns; twine, cordage ropes and cables and articles thereof.5. In this case the yarn had been manufactured from the synthetic fibre waste through ...

Khandelwal Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT456TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Khandelwal Engineering Works against the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur.2. Shri Naveen Mallick arguing for the appellants submitted that the main issue to be considered in this case is whether the process of reshelling of rollers amounts to manufacture or not. Apart from merits of the case, he said that the demand was clearly barred by time. He submitted that show cause notice was issued on 29-9-1984 without making an allegation of suppression therein and subsequently said to be a corrigendum was issued on 22-3-1990 alleging suppression of facts warranting invoking of extended period under Section 11A of the Act. In both the show cause notice, duty was demanded to Rs. 74,932.38 and without making charge with reference to penalty that in the order confirmed duty to Rs. 1,07,624/- against demand of Rs. 74,932.38 Paise, in addition to imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rule...

Ok Play India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT106TriDel

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of a duty amount of Rs. 18,82,080.00 and penalty of Rs. 2 lakh confirmed and imposed by the adjudicating authority on LLDPE powder converted from granules and used by the applicants herein, in the manufacture of items such as swings, slides, rockers, play tools, children chairs, etc. The period in dispute is from October, 1996 to March, 1997. The demand has been confirmed holding that the process of conversion of granules to powder is a process of manufacture, by virtue of Note 6(b) of Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Ld. Counsel, Shri L.P. Asthana submits that at this stage, what he would seek to highlight, is not the issue on merits but the fact that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, as the documents sought for by the applicants in order to support their defence, were not furnished and further, though the date of hearing before the Commissioner had b...

income-tax Officer Vs. D. M. Enterprises

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)67ITD123(Delhi)

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DCIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the status of a firm where certified copy of partnership deed as required under the provision of section 184(2) of the I.T. Act has not been filed." 2. The assessee furnished a return of income declaring loss of Rs. 12,930. The Assessing Officer processed the said return wider section 143(1)(a) on 18-2-1995 in which he determined the status of the firm as an Association of persons. He also disallowed the salary paid to partner amounting to Rs. 18,000 and thereby determined the assessee's income at Rs. 5,070. He levied tax at maximum marginal rates @ 40% under section 167B(2) of I.T. Act, 1961 and further levied additional tax. The Assessing Officer had also simultaneously passed an order under section 185 on 28-2-1995 in which he observed that the assessee has not filed the certified copy of instrument of partnership alongwith return of income. The assessee has failed to comply with the pr...

Smt. Meera Goyal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by assessee against block assessment for asst.yrs. 1986-87 to 1996-97 (block period 1st April, 1985 to 29th November, 1995) under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee is an individual and is director in Goyal Gases Ltd., deriving income from salary, house property, interest and dividend, etc. A search and seizure operation was conducted on the assessee on 29th November, 1995, along with her husband, Suresh Chand Goyal. A notice under s. 158BC dt. 16th October, 1996 was served on the assessee. In compliance of the same return was filed declaring nil income for the block period mentioned above. The AO issued show cause notice dt. 18th October, 1996. In compliance to the show-cause notice served on assessee in respect of undisclosed income for assessment purposes for the block period from 1st April, 1985, to 29th November, 1995, reply was submitted by the assessee vide letters dt. 4th November, 1995, 14th November, 1996, and 15th November, 1996. In letter dt....

Mohinder Nath and ors. Vs. Sh. Narender Nath and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)1; 72(1998)DLT785; 1998(45)DRJ296; 1998RLR333

ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge while prima-facie holding that the partnership firm M/s Kedar Nath Mohinder Nath was a partnership at will, has appointed an Advocate as the receiver of the firm. Not satisfied with the findings of the learned Single Judge appointing the receiver, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. Before the respective contentions of the parties are discussed a few facts which are relevant for deciding the present appeal may be stated as under:3. The appellants and respondent no.1 are real brothers and were partners in the partnership firm Kedar Nath Mohinder Nath (in short referred to as the firm). Each one of the said parties had 15% share in the firm and the remaining 40% was held by their mother. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 filed the suit for dissolution of the firm and for rendition of accounts. The mother of the parties holding 40% share was not made party in the suit and on objection having been taken by the res...

iec School of Art and Fashion Vs. Mr. Gursharan Goyal and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT833

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff is sole proprietory concern of Mr.S.L. Gupta. The plaintiff is running the business of imparting education in the field of fashion designing in the name of 'SAF' and has license to use the 'IEC' logo from IEC Limited. The plaintiff by this application seeks to restrain the defendants from using the name Saif/Saif/School of Art, Interior and Fashion and/or any other name which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's name SAF/IEC SAF/I SAF/IEC School of Art & Fashion/School of Art & Fashion, either in full form or in abbreviated form thereby resulting in passing off of its business/service as that of the plaintiff or as directly or indirectly connected with that of the plaintiff.2. According to the plaintiff's version, the sole proprietor of plaintiff concern S.L. Gupta conducts courses in fashion designing, computerised fashion, art and the illustration, textile designing and fashion and textile science in the name of...

Qaiser Jahan Begum and Another Vs. M/S Ramzan Karim and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)57; 1998(46)DRJ7

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.3,39,522.39 against the defendants.2. The plaintiffs have been carrying on business in brass art-wares in shop No.96, Municipal Market, Janpath, New Delhi, under the name and style of plaintiff No.2. Defendants, a partnership firm, are carrying on business as clearing, forwarding and shipping agents. The facts leading to the filing of the suit are enumerated in paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5 of the plaint which may be reproduced as follows:'2. That the partner of the defendant firm visited the shop of the plaintiff's firm at 96, Municipal Market, Janpath, New Delhi. He agreed to accept the consignment of Brass Art-wares for transportation to Baltimore, U.S.A., for Messrs Amin Merchants at 619, Missisipi Avenue, Silver Springs, MD., U.S.A. The purchasers, Messrs Amin Merchants ordered the goods for sale on the eve of Christmas in 1983. The goods were thus to reach them before Christmas in the said year. The defendant instr...