Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 5 of about 237 results (0.021 seconds)National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Chemicals and Allied Industries Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)334; 1998(2)ARBLR526(Delhi); 4(1998)CLT71; 75(1998)DLT552; 1999(47)DRJ64
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In respect of a contract entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 disputes arose between the parties. The aforesaid contract contained an arbitration. clause and in pursuance thereof the disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. Justice Shiv Narain Shankar, retired Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court. The learned Arbitrator entered into the reference and after allowing the parties of lead their evidence, heard the parties at length. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 24th May, 1989.2. A petition was filed in this Court under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act praying for filing of the award in this Court Notice was issued to the parties, on receipt of which the respondent No. 1 has filed an objection in this Court under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act against the award which is registered as I.A. No. 7939/89. The petitioner, on the other hand, has sought for making the award a Rule of the Court.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. M/S. East Coast Boat Builders and Engin ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT958; 1998(47)DRJ333; ILR1998Delhi797
A.K. Srivastava, J.1. This petition filed by Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Limited against M/s. East Coast Boat Builders & Engineers Ltd. is under Section 34(2)(iv) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short referred to 'the Act') for setting aside an order dated 11.6.1998.2. By the aforesaid order, the learned arbitral tribunal has ruled that the disputes raised in the claim petition are arbitrable. Feeling aggrieved with the order and treating the same as an interim award, the petitioner has challenged it under Section 34 of the Act. Notice in this petition was issued for 7.8.1998. On that date Mr. Shiv Dayal, Senior Advocate appeared for respondent No.1. and raised a preliminary objection about maintainabil-ity of this petition. Accordingly, learned counsel for parties were heard on the point of maintainability of this petition.3. Challenge to maintainability of the petition is on grounds, inter alia, that under the scheme of Arbitra...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar and Another Vs. Shri Madhusudan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)725; 75(1998)DLT381; 1998(47)DRJ479
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 27th March, 1995 passed by Shri P.D. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.2. The respondent alleges that he is the owner and landlord of the premises known as 37, Double Storey Quarters, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and the petitioners are the tenants of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- which was let out to them in the year 1978. The premises were let out for residential purposes and are being used by the petitioners as such and the said premises are required by the respondent bona fide for himself and his other family members dependent on him. At the time of filing of the petition the respondent was in Government accommodation and subsequently retired from the Government service. thereforee, he was required to surrender the accommodation allotted to him by the Government. Petitioner no.1 took the plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and that the respondent has conceal...
Tag this Judgment!J.R. Sood and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT306
S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. I intend to dispose of this suit for injunction filed for restraining the defendant from recovering any amount based on the bill dated 17th July, 1995 and the show cause notice dated 14th December, 1995 bearing No. Tax/ TRC/SAU/SCN/13328 in respect of EROSC inema, New Delhi and from recovering any property tax on the ratable value of Rs. 4,89,330/- or any other ratable value other than Rs. 50,849/- and is No. 3022/96 filed for ad interim injunction of similar nature.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the present dispute basically relates to the following points:(i) Inclusion of cost of electric fittings, furniture and fixtures and air-conditioning in the cost of building; and (ii) Maintainability of the suit. 3. As regards inclusion of certain items for the purpose of ratable value is concerned, one has to refer to the definition of the words 'land and building' and 'plant and machinery' as used i...
Tag this Judgment!Wings Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR912(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has sought for opinion of the High Court on the following two questions of law referable to the assessment year 1980-81 :'1. Whether, on the-facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,31,910 representing sale value of nominations obtained against import entitlements is assessable as income from business ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 3,49,846 representing transportation charges of goods incurred within India up to the port would rank for the deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the Finance Act, 1990, has inserted clause (iiia) in Section 28 and clause (va) in Section 2(24) of the Act, the effect whereof is that profits on sale of import entitlements agreement under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, has been included in the definition of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Silk Emporium Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR767(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This common order of reference referable to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 made at the instance of the asses-see seeks the opinion of the High Court on the following common question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 80,570 (assessment year 1978-79) and Rs. 87,374 (assessment year 1979-80) on account of sale of goods to foreign tourists was eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 .' 2. The statement of facts and the question itself as framed make it clear that the sale of goods had taken place within the country though the purchasers were foreign tourists. Expenditure was incurred on such sales. Such expenditure is not entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time. Reference may be made to two recent decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, CIT v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. : [1997]228ITR463(SC) and CIT v....
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT192; 1998(47)DRJ119
J.B. Goel, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail.2. The petitioner had apparently absconded. Proceedings under sections 82, 83 and 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') were held and the case was consigned to record room.3. The petitioner has been challaned in FIR No. 563/93 of Police Station Punjabi Bagh under section 279/338 IPC. He was summoned for 24.5.1996. The process server took the summons to the address earlier given by the petitioner himself i.e. H.NO. 3235, Dharampur, Gandhi Nagar. His father met him who informed that the petitioner was living at his in-law's house at H.No. 9/1904 Gali No. 3, Kailash Nagar, Delhi. The process server went there and on making inquiry outside neighborhood of the house, he was informed that the petitioner was present inside his house. His mother-in-law met the process server who told him that the petitioner was not present at that time.4. His surety appeared in Court on 24.5.1996 and took time to produce the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Fitwell Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT221TriDel
1. The appellants exported men's leather shoe uppers vide five shipping bills in October/November, 1994. In the declaration to be filed on the body of the shipping bills they enumerated the following raw materials/components/consumables as having been used in the export products.2. In persuance to their application they were granted a value based advance licence on 5-5-1995. The condition in the advance licence required the export products to contain the following parts/components :- 3. The appellants filled a DEEC Book to show the details of the resultant products, in Part '' of Part II of the DEEC Book and took it to the Customs for logging. The jurisdictional authority issued the show cause notice dated 17-6-1995 in which the following allegation was made : "As per the declaration submitted by the exporters along with each shipping Bill none of the aforementioned goods have been used in the manufacture of the resultant products in spite of the fact that the exporters have claimed c...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jagat Cement (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT709TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification 24/91, dated 25-7-1991 is available to a manufacturer of cement who manufactures cement out of clinkers purchased from outside.2. No one was present on behalf of the respondents and the notice issued to them has been received back from the postal authorities with the remarks "closed". We heard Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR who submitted that the matter has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Sankar Cement Company reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 362 (Tribunal).3. Notification No. 24/91 provides exemption in respect of cement subject to the condition, inter alia, that the factory is using vertical shaft kiln. It is an admitted fact that the respondents have not manufactured the clinkers in their factory as they have purchased the same from outside. In similar situations, the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sanker Cement Co. has observed that si...
Tag this Judgment!Cadbury India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT457TriDel
1.2 The appellants herein is a manufacturer of various types of confectionery items falling under Tariff Heading 18 prior to 28-2-1987 is after introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were making a sugar solution by disolving crystal sugar in water, thus bringing into existence sugar syrup. Prior to 28-2-1986 no duty was required to be paid by the appellants in terms of Notification 118/75, dated 30-4-1975 inasmuch as they were using the said solution in their various final dutiable products i.e. confectionery items. However, on change to the new Tariff sugar syrup became separately classifiable under Tariff Sub-heading 1702.30. This Sub-heading, inter alia, speaks of "sugar syrup not containing added flavouring or colouring matter" carrying rate of duty of 12%. A question has arisen whether this sugar syrup is liable to duty although they have used the duty paid sugar in making the sugar syrup. The appellants did not declare the manufacturing of the said sugar s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »