Delhi Court July 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.
Thandi Ram Jai NaraIn Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)471; 75(1998)DLT376
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This petition is directed against the rejection of an application for amendment. The appellant filed an application under Section 18 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act praying for amending date of booking from 24th November 1993 to 21st November 1993 in para 5 and in para 7.1 (A) of the application for the same has been mentioned by mistake.2. The respondent objected to the amendment and submitted that by amending the date of booking from 24th November to 21st November 1993, the applicant wanted to set up a new case which cannot be permitted. In the statutory notice, the applicant had stated that the date of booking was 24th November 1993, thereforee, by bringing the amendment in the claim petition, the cause of action could not be changed.3. The learned Tribunal accepted the objection and dismissed the application observing as under:'...the original forwarding note shows the date 21.11.93 but in the notice the applicant has given PWB No. 407318 dt. 24.11.93. Hence b...
Senior Laboratories Ltd. Vs. M/S. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)701; AIR1999Delhi102; 1998(2)ARBLR403(Delhi); 77(1999)DLT187
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. By the order dated July 18,1996 the learned single Judge allowed I.A.99118/95 and dismissed I.As.12447/95 & 12451/95. FAO(OS) No. 292/96 is directed against the order in I.As.9918/95 and 12447/95 while FAO(OS) No. 293/96 against the order in I.A.12451/95. Since both the appeals arise out of a common order, we propose to dispose them of this common order.2. Suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts etc. was filed by M/s.Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd., plaintiff/respondent, inter alia, alleging that it is an established company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. Plaintiff adopted the trade mark SEFLOX on April 1,1990 in respect of one of its pharmaceutical preparations and has been continuously suing it up to this time. Plaintiff widely advertised the said trade mark through different media. It has now become distinctive and associated with the plaintiff on account of long, extensive and...
Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)708; 75(1998)DLT89; 1998(47)DRJ176
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of I.As. 3834/92, 13694/92 & 13695/92.2. Suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, alleging that Hanuman Pershad Gupta who was Karta of M/s. Deoki Nandan & Sons (HUF), obtained lease of plot No. 29 Block No. 11 (now known as 1, Tughlak Lane, New Delhi), admeasuring about 1.492 acres, from the Govt. of India through the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and a lease-deed was executed on October 13, 1937 operative with effect from November 17, 1931. He got constructed a building on the land and moved there in Along with his family in or about 1948. Plaintiff, defendant No. 1, Krishan Kumar Gupta (deceased), husband of defendant No. 4 and father of defendants 5 & 6, Atul Kumar Gupta (deceased), husband of defendant No. 2(i) and father of defendants 2(ii), 2(iii) & 3, are the sons of said Hanuman Pershad Gupta who expired on December 18, 1972. It is alleged that in a petition being Suit No. 2164A/85 filed under ...
Sag Construction Associates Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)867; (1999)155CTR(Del)120; [1998]234ITR501(Delhi); 1999RLR248
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a petition by an assessed seeking direction to respondent No. 5 to release payment of interest to the petitioner under Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts relevant may briefly be noticed. Amount of Rs. 7,235/- was deducted as TDS from the assessee. The assessed filed a return and an order of assessment was made on 22.2.83. There was an appeal wherein by order dated 13.12.85, the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the order of assessment. Thereafter a fresh order of assessment was made on 6.3.88. On 31.3.88, the petitioner moved an application to the ITO for awarding interest on the amount of Rs. 7,235/- which fell due and payable to the petitioner consequent upon the order of assessment. The prayer was reject-ed. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was held to be not maintainable. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application under Section 264 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income Tax. By order dated 22.6.90, the pe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR627(Delhi)
1. Heard finally.2. This is a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a mandamus to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the following questions of law (referable to the assessment year 1983-84) for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct both on facts and in law in : (a) cancelling the order dated March 25, 1988, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by holding that the amounts received by the assessed to the extent of 2.5 per cent, of the deposits made by the customers did not have the character of income to be assessable under the Income-tax Act, 1961, during the relevant accounting period and were merely the 'deposits' received under an executory contract, while the facts and circumstances of the case show- (i) The real nature of the receipts was not that of deposit ; (ii)...
Mool Raj Singh and ors. Vs. Income Tax Office
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Del)211
ORDERJA BENGRA, J.M.:These are appeals by assessees against orders of CIT, Meerut passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, pertaining to asst. yr. 1985-86. Since appeals relate to one group of persons, in which there are common partners and the CIT has given basically same reasoning in all these cases, thereforee, for the sake of convenience these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.While examining the records of these assessees the CIT, Meerut was of the view that the orders passed under s. 185(1) r/w s. 143(3) passed by the AO was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the Revenue (sic).2. The share of each partner, capital employed, profit earned and gift made either to Mool Raj Singh or his family members is as under :S. No.Name of the partnerRatioProfitCapital employedGifted Amount1 .Mool Raj Singh2%1,7441,0002.Smt. Devki Devi4%3,4882,00055,0003.Smt. Indrawati4%3,4882,00055,0004.Om Prakash4%3,4882,0005,0005.Bhopal Singh43%47,49685,1675,0006.Shiv Kumar43%37,49645...
Duke and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT196TriDel
1. The appellants have two factories one at Pune and the other at Chembur, Bombay. At the factory at Pune, the appellants inter alia manufacture mango pulp, orange pulp and mango slices and syrup. These goods are packed in unit containers 3 Kgs., 5 Kgs. etc. 1.2 Of the total production, a part of it is cleared to the factory at Chembur by the appellants, where it is processed to make various drinks marketed as "Mangola". The remaining part is sold at the factory at Pune to outsiders.2.1 Question involved herein is whether the appellants' goods transferred by them to their factory at Chembur are to be classified under Tariff sub-heading 2001.90, as contended by the appellants or under sub-heading 2001.10, as contended by the Revenue. In order to understand the controversy at hand we reproduce the relevant sub-headings :---------------------------------------------------------------------------Heading Sub-heading Description of goods. Rate ofNo. No. duty---------------------------------...
Collector of Customs Vs. Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT490TriDel
1.2 Respondents herein imported "Integrated Powder Diffractometer Basic Operational System." The said apparatus was based on X-ray used for examination of the crystalline structure as well as the chemical composition of materials. It is covered by Tariff Heading 90.22. The original authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 121 /92-Cus.in respect of auxiliary duty leviable on the said apparatus. The respondents, however, succeeded before the lower appellate authority which has held as follows : "There is no necessity to restrict the benefit of notification to instruments falling under a particular Tarif Heading, when the notification and Table attached thereto allows instrun tents, falling under Chapter 90 of the Indian Customs Tariff. In determinin the scope and coverage of a notification, no doubt interpretation should be made on actual words used therein, but there is no necessity to unnecessarily restrict the scope of notification by introducing extraneous considerations. It...
New Asia Medical P. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(80)LC109Tri(Delhi)
1. Short question involved in the present appeal is that even though the invoice had mentioned regarding import of PCBs, the appellants had not declared them in the Bill of Entry. It is only on examination of the goods that the appellants modified the Bill of Entry by declaring PCBs. It is also admitted to the appellants that PCBs required an ITC licence but learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that they had immediately produced the licence and the authorities had also accepted it. He, therefore, submits that in view of the licence having been produced the appellants' goods could not be confiscated nor any personal penalty be imposed. On the other hand, learned SDR, Shri A.K.Agarwal has pointed out that but for the examination of the goods and but for being pointed out by Customs Officers the declaration of PCBs would have escaped. It is, therefore, a case of misdeclaration. He submits that confiscation of goods had been made not under Section 111 (d) but under Section 11...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.K. Marbles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT229TriDel
1. All the captioned 72 Appeals were taken up together as the issue involved in all these Appeals was the same, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The short point for determination in these appeals is whether the Asst. Commissioner could adjudicate the cases where the amount of duty was more than Rs. 50,000/-. The facts leading to the present cases are that the Commissioner (Appeals) held that in pursuance of the Circular No. 3/92-CX. 6, dated 14-5-1992 and Circular No. 299/15/97-CX., dated 27-2-1997, the powers of the Assistant Commissioners were administratively restricted. Against this finding, the Revenue has filed the captioned appeals.3. We have heard Shri P.K. Jain, the ld. SDR for Revenue and S/Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ravindran, K.K. Anand, Rajesh Kumar and Ms. Smriti Mishra, ld. Advocates for the Respondents.4. We note that powers of adjudication including confiscation and imposition of penalty are governed by Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »