Delhi Court May 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.
N.C. Singhal (Dr.) Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3568; 75(1998)DLT80
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dated 30.3.1991 and that of the learned Additional Session Judge dated 3.1.1998. Brief facts necessary to decide this petition are recapitulated as under:- 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was a licensee of a chamber measuring 8' x 8', for carrying on medical practice/consultation from 1 PM to 3 PM on Tuesday. Thursday and Saturday. Even according to the license deed, the licensor had a right to allow any other person to carry on medical practice at any time, in that chamber. It is also mentioned in the license deed that the chamber shall be used for giving medical consultation/advice to the patients visiting the said doctor and for no other purpose. 3. It was specifically incorporated in the license deed that the license is purely temporary and the licensor has absolute right to terminate t...
L.S. Bisht Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT211
ORDERS (.) CHARGE ASSUMPTION REPORT BE SENTTO ALL CONCERNED IMMEDIATELY.4. On 23.3.1995, the Additional Deputy Director (Personnel) wrote to the Deputy Director (Accounts) Pay and Accounts Division in the following terms :Sub: Promotion of Commandant (SC) to the Rank of Additional Dy. Inspector General in BSF. I am directed to convey sanction of the President to the appointment of following Commandants (Selection Grade) on promotion to the rank of Additional Deputy Inspector General on officiating basis with effect from 29.2.1995 or from the date of taking over charge, whichever is later :- Sub: Promotion of Commandant (SC) to the Rank of Additional Dy. Inspector General in BSF. I am directed to convey sanction of the President to the appointment of following Commandants (Selection Grade) on promotion to the rank of Additional Deputy Inspector General on officiating basis with effect from 29.2.1995 or from the date of taking over charge, whichever is later :- S. No. IRLA No. Name1. 653...
Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR354(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case as arising from its order in RA Nos. 838/ Delhi of 1992 and RA No. 271/Delhi of 1994 for the opinion of the High Court : 2. The facts of the case have been briefly summarised as under : The assessed is a company which during the year under consideration, i.e., 1984-85, dealt with cement apart from its normal business of paper and the entire dispute in this reference application relates to matters connected with this new business of cement. 3. Pursuant to the decision of the Government of India to allow import of cement, several State Corporations were permitted to import cement under open general license and to sell the same to actual users. In pursuance of that scheme, the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter called PUNSUP) and t...
Rishi Pal Gupta Vs. S.J. Knitting and Finishing Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: 4(1998)CLT15; 73(1998)DLT593; 1998(45)DRJ522; (1998)119PLR53
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. By this order I propose to dispose of the applications filed by the respondent praying for recalling and/or review of the order dated 10.4.1997 and 2.12.1997 passed by this court in the connected Company Petition, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condensation of delay in filing the aforesaid application praying for recalling and reviewing of the orders and also the application filed by the respondent praying for stay of the aforesaid orders passed by this court.2. The petitioner filed a petition in this court under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act praying for winding up of the respondent company for their inability to pay the dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 6,89,870.76. It was stated in the petition that the aforesaid liability of the respondent company as due to the petitioner was admitted and that inspire of the aforesaid admission no payment was made which clearly established th...
S.K. BhasIn Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT542; 1998(45)DRJ656
M.K. Sharma, J.1. Challenge is made in this writ petition to the seniority list dated 25.8.1992 published by respondent .No. 2 showing the petitioner at Seriall No. 8 and also showing respondents 3,4,5 & 6 against Seriall Nos. 3,4,5 & 6 respeetively. The petitioner seeks for quashing of the seniority list particularly the action of respondent No. 2 in showing the name of the petitioner at Seriall No. 8 i.e. below the names of respondents 3 to 6, although according to the petitioner he is senior to said respondents. In the alternative the petitioner has also sought for, in the writ petition, a declaration that regulation 3(8) of the Service Regulations of 1985 to be ultravires and inconsistent with regulations 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5).2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer against a permanent post on 26.11.1968 and he was confirmed in the said post on 26.11.1969. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis on 1.5.1971, whereas the respondent No. ...
Agarwal Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT354TriDel
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of duty amount of Rs. 5,24,732.78/-. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the goods in question are re-rolled products such as twisted deformed (CTD Bars) falling under Heading 7214.00 of the Central Excise Act. He Submits that the goods were exempted from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 90/88, dated 1-3-1988.Thereafter, by Notification 202/88, dated 20-5-1988, the exemption to this product was withdrawn and the Government again issued a Notification No. 170/89, dated 16-8-1989 restoring the earlier exemption under Notification 90/88, dated 1-3-1988. He submits that for the period 1-3-1989 to 15-8-1989 the demand was confirmed only on the ground that during this period, the goods were not exempted as the exemption was withdrawn by Notification 202/88, dated 25-9-1988.Learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal in the case of Apex Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 368 held th...
Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT545TriDel
1. The above ten appeals were taken up together as the issue involved all these ten appeals is the same. These are being, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. The issue for determination in all these ten appeals is whether any amount representing Central Excise Duty collected can be retained in view of the fact that Section 11D provides that "Every person who has collected any amount from the buyer of any goods in any manner as representing duty of excise, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government." 3. The facts of the case are that scrutiny of the documents revealed that the appellants had collected excess amount as duty of excise during the period after 20-9-1990. Section 11D was introduced in the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 20-9-1991. The lower authorities held that the amounts collected as Central Excise duty should be deposited forthwith. Being aggrieved by these orders, the appellants have filed the present ten ap...
Hotline Teletube and Components Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC240
1. The above appeals arise out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Indore, confirming the two separate adjudication orders dated 15-11-1995 and 7-12-1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting refund claims filed by the appellants herein.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of black and white picture tubes falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and they availed of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of picture tubes, part of which they cleared for home consumption on payment of duty, utilising the credit paid on the inputs in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57F. They also cleared black and white picture tubes for export under bond without payment of duty. They duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product cleared for export under bond without payment of duty got accumulated in their RG 23A Part II account....
H and R Johnson (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC453
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 22-1-1993 the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants herein who are the manufacturers of wall tiles and floor tiles. They found that the statutory records such as RG-1 Register were written upto 20-1-1993 and the production of the night shift of 20-1-1993 was transferred to the BSR whereas the production of the second shift was still lying in the finishing room. On 23-1-1993, fresh counting was started and the officers found that 14,460 boxes of different varieties of wall tiles were kept outside the temporary BSR which was in violation of Rule 47 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. These tiles were, therefore, seized and handed over to the authorised signatories of the appellants for safe custody. The Panchnama was also prepared. The statement of the authorised signatory was recorded in which he stated that seized boxes had been kept outside the temporary BSR without permission of the competent authority and that they h...
Grassim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT492TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against the common Order-in-Original Nos.34 to 43/97, dated 19-2-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore holding that notional interest at 18% on advances collected from buyers of many of the machinery parts manufactured and cleared by the appellant should be included in the assessable value and confirming the demand on that basis.2. The undisputed facts are that appellant was manufacturing machinery parts, tailor made to suit the requirement of each buyer and was receiving advance amount from most of the buyers. The amounts of advance ranged from Rs. 36,000/- to Rs. 29.29 lakhs. The amounts of advance ranged from 10% to 35% of the amounts of the contract. The period during which the advance remained in the hands of the appellant varied from 23 days to 1148 days. One of the cases involving a fairly substantial amount of advance was the contract for supply of machinery parts at the price of Rs. 83 lakhs. On this contract, appellant receiv...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »