Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

G.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT893TriDel

1. This stay application of G.T.C. Industries Ltd. is directed against denial of Modvat credit of over Rs. 59 Lacs in respect of Cut Tobacco and imposing a penalty of over Rs. 60 Lacs under adjudication Order No.89/Demand/97, dated 19-11-1997 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Baroda.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are cigarette manufacturers and Cut Tobacco is the main raw material in the manufacture of cigarettes. Cut tobacco was liable to duty and the duty paid on cut tobacco was set off against the duty payable on cigarettes at the time of clearance of cigarettes under Notification No. 355/86, dated 24-6-1986. Modvat credit was extended to cigarettes under Notification No. 69/95, dated 16-3-1995 and simultaneously notification providing for set off duty was rescinded. The Modvat claim in dispute in the instant case relates to the cut tobacco contained in the cigarette in stock and rip tobacco in stock, (rip tobacco is cut tobacco obtained by slitting of reject...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.U.R. Polyurethene Products (P)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals filed both by the Revenue as well by the assessee are consolidated and disposed of by a single order. Appeals containing common issues relate to asst. yr. 1989-90.2. At the outset it may be pointed out that none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice having been sent through registered post.On perusal of the order sheet we further find that the appeals have been fixed right from the year 1996 onwards. Considering the several opportunities allowed, we proceed to dispose of appeals ex parts qua assessee but on merits. The submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and the paper book submitted by the assessee are taken into consideration while disposing of the appeals.3. Taking up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 599/Del/1992 first, we find that the first contention raised relates to disallowance of loss of Rs. 30,000 claimed by the assessee. The facts in brief are that the assessee-company who is having its factory at Okhla Industrial Area Phas...

Sanjeev Batra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)69ITD23(Delhi)

1. This is assessee's appeal directed against the order of the CIT(A), New Delhi, dt. 13th September, 1996, relating to asst. yr. 1993-94 and following grounds have been raised : "1. Action of the CIT(A) in not deleting following additions made by the AO is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case : (a) Rs. 25,00,000 under s. 68 of the IT Act, for gift of that amount received by Master Suvrat Batra, son of the assessee. 2. Action of the CIT(A) in upholding charge of interest under s. 234A, 234B and 234C of IT Act is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Action of the CIT(A) in not taking note of the submissions of the applicant that the provisions of s. 64(1A) of IT Act are not applicable to the facts of this case is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Since ground No. 1(a) and ground No. 3 are inter-related, these are first taken up and disposed of.3. Fac...

S. Kumar Vs. G.R. Kathpalia and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)744; 77(1999)DLT266; (1999)121PLR43; 1999RLR114

Arun Kumar, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing was that a petition for fixation of standard rent of the premises was already pending before the Rent Controller and the landlords/respondents could not pursue the remedy by way of a suit for possession simultaneously. It is also submitted that an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is also pending. The learned Addl. District Judge has noticed an order passed by this Court in a Civil Revision filed by the appellant against the order dismissing the application of the appellant under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. That order makes it dear that the two parallel proceedings can in law continue simultaneously and this could not be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. A Division Bench judgment of this Court has been relied upon in the said order. The said judgment is a ...

Ram (Cap.) Singh Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)857; 1998(47)DRJ233

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Petitioner is a resident of Bapu Park, Kotla-Mubarakpur, New Delhi, which is the area stated to be lying between South Extension Part-I, defense Colony and Lodhi Colony. Petitioner's case is that Bapu Park is adjacent to Blocks C and D of South Extension Part-I, New Delhi. The colony was developed and its plan was duly sanctioned by MCD. The remaining area was acquired by the Government. Compensation was paid to the owners. Because of the inaction on the part of the authorities, certain persons occupied the area, which belonged to Government and carried out new constructions. Some of the persons occupied the main road. Petitioner's grievance has been that the respondent authorities have failed and neglected to discharge their statutory obligations despite various representations made by him for removal of illegal encroachment made within the area, which is sandwiched between Blocks C and D of South Extension Part-I and Subhas Market. According to him, mainly t...

Satish Gathwal and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT370A

J.B. Goel, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code) for quashing of FIR No. 317/87 registered at P.S. R.K. Puram, New Delhi Under Section 498A/406/34, IPC and the proceedings arising out of the said FIR.2. Briefly the facts are, that the petitioner No. 1 (Satish Gathwal) was married to respondent No. 2 (Sujata) on 27.1.1986. The parties could not pull on together for long and have been living separately since August, 1987. A complaint dated 15.9.1987 was filed by respondent No. 2 wife alleging harassment and demand of dowry against the husband, his father and mother on the basis of which aforesaid FIR No. 317/87 was registered. After investigations, Challan was submitted and charges have also since been framed on 7.8.1996. In the meantime, parties entered into a written agreement dated 4.6.1996 whereby they settled the disputes between them on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Inter alia, it was agreed that a sum of Rs....

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Park Plot Hold ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 3(1998)CLT705; 75(1998)DLT169; 1998(47)DRJ147

M.K. Sharma, J. 1. By this common judgment and order we propose to dispose of the two Letters Patent Appeals registered as LPA No. 150/1987, LPA No. 6/1988 as also Cross-Objections registered as C.M. 1017/1988. The aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals and the Cross-Objection arose out of the two writ petitions registered as Writ Petitions No. 776/1981 and 2174/1981 disposed of by learned Single Judge of this Court on 2.11.1987.2. Before delving into the merits of the contentions raised in these appeals it would be necessary to give some background facts giving rise to the writ petitions.In 1955 the Central Government issued an Ordinance called Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Ordinance which later on became an Act of Parliament with the same name. By the provisions of the aforesaid Act an authority called Delhi Development Provisional Authority was established for planned development of Delhi, which was later on formed as Delhi Development Authority on 30.12.1957. Shri N.N.Verma, who...

Raman Kumar Sood Vs. Dr. K.K. Rattan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT496; 1999(48)DRJ283

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This order shall dispose of is Nos. 8449/88, and 2024/93 for granting injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 4 and their agents from in any manner raising any construction, structure or any development or digging any tubewell in the suit land and from in any manner selling, alienating any vegetable, fruits or plants to any one till the disposal of the suit. is No. 7095/95 under Order 39, Rule 4 for vacating the order of granting ad interim injunction by defendant No. 1 as of necessity is required to be disposed of along with the above said application.2. First the relevant facts in brief. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement dated 17th July. 1987 to sell 9 bighas 12 bids was 2 acres of land in Village Samalka, Tehsil Mehrauli within the Union Territory of Delhi at the agreed rate of Rs.3.57 lacs per acre of 4,840 sq. yds. and in the alternative, recovery of Rs.25,36,000/- as well as for injunction against transfer etc. It...

Dr. Sat Pal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ705

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner was working in General Duty Department, MCD. On the 1 11th of August, 1986, a circular was issued by the MCD inviting applications for tilling up the posts of GDO-I(Public Health). Pursuant to this circular, on the 15th of September, 1986 the petitioner applied for being appointed on transfer to GDMO-I(Public Health). On the 21st of December, 1988, an office order was issued by the MCD appointing the petitioner with effect from 18.3.1987 in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 in Public Health. By oversight, the post was mentioned as GDO-II(PH) instead of General Duty, Grade-1 (Public Health) in the sale of Rs.3000-4500. It is not disputed that as on that date the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 was applicable only to General Duty Grade-I(Public Health).2. Clarifying this position, an office order was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the 11th of July, 1989. The same reads as under:-'On the recommendations of the UPSC vide their letter No.F.3/3...

Jagdish Prasad Vs. I.O.C. Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ302

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for direction against respondents to allow him to perform his duties as labour, which he had been performing in the respondent Corporation prior to 31.12.1991 and to treat him on duty for all intents and purposes from the date of his arrest and to allow all consequential benefits.2. It is alleged that the petitioner's name was sponsored by Employment Exchange for being engaged as a labour in the respondent Corporation, as a result of personal interview held in August, 1984. The petitioner was engaged as a Labour w.e.f. 9.1.1986 through Office Order dated 28.12.1985 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner continued to be deployed as labour till 31.12.1991, where after he could not attend to his duties, as he was arrested in connection with a case for offence under Sections 302/323/34 IPC registered on the basis of FIR No.2/92 of P.S. Dabri. After the petitioner was released on bail on 19.10.1992, he made representation to the respondent Corporatio...