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.
Om Parkash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)93; 1998(4)Crimes227; 75(1998)DLT69; 1998(47)DRJ569; 1998RLR478
ORDERMohd. Shamim, J.1.This appeal is directed against the judgment and orderdated September 28,1977 passed by a Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby the learned lower court found the convict/appellant ( hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of brevity) guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter the Prevention of referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In case of his failure to clear the fine he was further directed to undergo RI for two months. The appellant was also found guilty under Section 161 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year. 2. Brief facts which led to the presentation of the present appeal are as under: that one Sanjay Lalwani (PW1) was studying in B.Com. IInd Year,Hindu College, Delhi University, Delhi. He was in that capacity in occupation of Room No. 80 of the Hostel. He was also having a motor cycle bearing registration No. RMM ...
Rattan Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Del)418; [1998]234ITR220(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1990-91, the return of income was filed by the writ petitioner on October 22, 1991, declaring an income of Rs. 72,940. The assessment was completed on January 23, 1993, on the income of Rs. 88,440. The assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The Income-tax Officer, Ward 13(5), New Delhi, has issued to the petitioner a notice dated May 3, 1993, under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 1990-91 stating that he has reason to believe that income chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and he, thereforee, proposes to reassess the income for the said assessment year. The petitioner was required within 30 days from the date of the service of the notice to file a return in the prescribed form. The petitioner says that he objected to the reopening of the assessment and requested for supply of the reasons on the basis of which ...
Ashok Chawla Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN50(Delhi)
1. This is air application filed by the petitioners seeking restraint on the sale of the petitioners properties which is proposed to be held on 10-6-1998 (Annexure A with the application). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as against the order of assessment, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Tribunal; so far as challenge to the proceedings under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is concerned, the same is before this Court.2. Opposing the prayer for ad interim relief, the learned senior standing counsel for the department has invited attention of the Court to the facts stated in para 5 of the order of the act of the Tribunal dated 16-6-1997 (Annexure D), wherein the Tribunal has noted the fact of the petitioners themselves having offered the properties for sale, which has been kept in view as a relevant factor by the Tribunal while passing the order of stay dated 16-6-1997.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitione...
Sanjay Rishi Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN68(Delhi)
ORDERR.C. Lahobi, J.This application has been filed on behalf of both the petitioners seeking withdrawal of the writ petition.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 30-8-1996 (Annexure 1), passed under section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Subsequently, an order dated 28-2-1997 under section 269UJ of the Act has also been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are abandoning their challenge to these orders and seeking withdrawal of the writ petition.3. It is also submitted that in view of the petitioners, having given up the challenge to the orders of the appropriate authority, an amount of Rs. 49,51,496 is liable to be released to the petitioners and as per the agreement arrived at between the two petitioners, the entire amount is to be received by Om Prakash Bhasin, petitioner No. 2.4. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the petitio...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Suraj Foundry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT205TriDel
1. This appeal from the Revenue was admitted and was taken up for final hearing with the consent of both the parties.2. The assessees had taken Modvat credit on the basis of two invoices both dated 27-9-1994 issued by M/s. SAIL. These invoices were marked as "Customer/Transporter". After issue of a show cause notice and after hearing the assessees, the Assistant Collector passed orders denying Modvat credit on the ground that the subject invoice was not a duplicate copy for transporter as set out in Rule 52A. The Collector (Appeals), on the observation that at the material time there were no conditions, in Rule 57GG that such invoices should be marked as "duplicate for transporter" and that this condition was later incorporated by insertion of sub-rule 4(a) of Rule 57GG; granted relief to the assessees. Against this order, the Revenue have come in appeal.In the appeal memorandum, reliance has been placed on Board's Circular No. 70/70/94-CX. 8, dated 24-10-1994 in which it has been dir...
Ramesh Chandra Khanna Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT51TriDel
1. After hearing the appellants, the appeal was admitted for hearing on the ground that the appellant is an individual service tax payer.Revenue having on objection, the case was taken up for final disposal.The appellant is a stock broker, who has not conducted any business during the period 1994-1998. This is as per the certificate given by the U.P. Stock Exchange Association Ltd. on 21-1-1998. He was registered for collecting service tax on 5-12-1994. The show cause notice was issued to him for his failure to file quarterly returns for quarter ending September, 1994. The show cause notice stated that penalty of Rs. 16,400.00 was imposable upon him in terms of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Assistant Collector, however, took a lenient view and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,000/-. In doing so, he relied upon the authority vested on him under Section 80 of the said Act. The Collector (Appeals), having upheld the lower order, the present appeal is before me.2. I have heard the ap...
Galaxy Organics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(65)ECC405
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 12-11-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi holding that the item imported by the appellants, viz. Integrator Model 1020 would be classifiable under Heading No. 8471.91 as proposed by the Department and the duty payable thereon has been correctly assessed by the lower authorities.2. Appearing for the appellants Shri Babu Iyer, Advocate submitted that the question involved in this appeal was with regard to the classification of Integrator - whether it would fall under Chapter 9027.20 as claimed by the appellants or under Chapter 84.71 as claimed by the Department.3. The appellants had imported a consignment of 'Autosystem Gas Chromatograph' for their Research & Development Laboratory. The appellants filed a bill of entry showing the item as classifiable under Chapter Heading 9027.20. According to the appellants, there are four parts of a Gas Chromatograph. These were Injector, Oven, Detector, and Integrat...
Tarlochan Singh Mokha Vs. M/S. Shriram Piston and Himalaya House and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)225; 74(1998)DLT455
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs:-'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the termination of services of the plaintiff by defendants was illegal, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional, arbitrary, unjust, unilateral, unreasonable, wrongful, without authority, in violation of the terms of employment, against the principles of natural justice, fair play and equity and to pass an order for reinstatement with full back wages, and/or to pass a decree for Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs) in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally with costs, as damages. The plaintiff also prays for award of future interest @ 18% per annum on decretal amount from the date of filing of the suit, to the date of realisation.'2. The case of the plaintiff could be briefly stated in the following terms:The petitioner obtained a Degree in Graduation from Delhi University...
D.D. Sharma (Ex. Asstt. Comdt.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 74(1998)DLT92; 1998(46)DRJ162
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. Challenge is made in this writ petition filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice as also to the order of dismissal passed by the respondents invoking the power under Rule 20 of the BSF Rules, 1969.2. The petitioner joined the Border Security Force as Sub-Inspector in the year 1970 and, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1980. In 1986, the petitioner was transferred to EDP, Directorate of the BSF Headquarter, New Delhi, and while working in the aforesaid capacity, he was promoted as Assistant Commandant in the month of February, 1989. The petitioner was subsequently transferred and posted to 40 Battalion, BSF in the month of March, 1989. He, however, was granted earned leave for 25 days initially and thereafter again for another 22 days extension of earned leave was granted with effect from 19.6.1989 to 4.8.1989 with permission to suffix 5th and 6th August, 1989 being Government holidays. The petitioner again applied for e...
M.C. Vats Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1998
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)347; 74(1998)DLT185
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner joined the respondent as stenographer and he was placed in the scale of Rs.1400-2300/- w.e.f.1.1.1986 as per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. The petitioner was granted the revised scale of pay as per the decision dated the 28th of August, 1992. The petitioner prays for the grant of scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f 1.1.1986 in terms of notification dated 29.10.1986 on par with pay scales granted to his counterparts in the Central Government/Union Territory of Delhi etc.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.P.Sengh referred to the communication dated the 29th of October, 1986 issued by the Government of India and the same reads as under:-'As the Ministry of Home Affairs etc. are aware, the Government have already issued orders regarding revision of pay scale of Central Government employees belonging to Group `B', `C' and `D' categories on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. It has be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »