Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 6 of about 234 results (0.021 seconds)Collector of Customs Vs. Kissan Products Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC156Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Revenue Appeal the prayer is for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-12-1990 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore and for restoring the Order-in-Original dated 30-4-1967 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Internal Container Depot, Bangalore.2'. The question raised relates to the admissibility to the benefits of Notification No. 47/84-Cus., dated 1-3-1984 to the Ascetic Packaging System imported by the Respondents which consisted of three parts viz.product preparation system, product sterilisation system and product filling system.3. Respondents had imported a consignment declaring it as Asceptic Packaging System by Bill of Entry Nos. 61 of 1984. After the goods were cleared after payment of duty in accordance with the concessional rate under exemption Notification No. 47/84, the Assistant Collector issued a demand notice calling upon the Respondents to show cause why extra duty should not be recovered from them on the ground that the goods h...
Tag this Judgment!Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)69ITD273(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by assessee against an order of CIT(A)-17, New Delhi pertaining to asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessee originally raised the following grounds : "1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making the prima facie adjustment and its disallowing the claim of deduction by way of IPRS received by the assessee under s. 143(1)(a) is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 2. That the Revenue authorities erred in disallowing the claim of the assessee of IPRS receipt being capital in nature while determining and computing the income under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. The said receipt under this section could not be adjusted as the same was debatable in nature. 3. That since the regular assessment under s. 143(3) in the present case stood finalised, assessment proceedings under s. 143(1)(a) stood automatically closed and no demand on account of these proceedings could be freshly raised by way of additional tax. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Bansal Contractors (India) Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)315; 76(1998)DLT805; 1999(48)DRJ382; [2000]241ITR97(Delhi); 1999RLR92
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the sale of property bearing No. C(C)-18, Kalkaji, New Delhi, purchased by the petitioner from the President of India by way of registered Sale Deed dated 5.4.1989 after its acquisition under Sections 269UD and 269UE of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) is a first sale and full ownership rights, title and interests vest in the petitioner and further seeks quashing of paras 3, 4 and 5 and portion of A, 2A in para 1 of the letter dated 11.1.1991, issued by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner for and on behalf of the President of India demanding enhanced ground from Rs. 9/- to Rs.72,409/- per annum. The petitioner further seeks a declaration that the ground rent demanded is in abuse and excess of authority and offends Articles 14 and 300A of the onstitution.2. One Surjit Singh Sahni s/o Sh. Jai Singh acquired rights in immovable property bearing plot No.18 Block No. C (C) Kal...
Tag this Judgment!Medisource Agenices Pvt Ltd and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)37; 1998(47)DRJ563
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 with a view to passing an order of adjudication in the matter of likely evasion of payment of customs duty have been initiated against the petitioners. The proceedings are at the stage of investigation. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings complaining of the initiation of the proceedings and the seizure of the goods of the petitioners both being without jurisdiction, also complaining of harassment of the two directors (petitioners 3 and 4) and employees of the companies petitioner 1 and 2 at the hands of the officials of the Customs Department. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the Supdt of Customs, respondents 3 and 4 have been imp leaded in personal capacity also.2. According to the petitioners they have been importing canella for aorta vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels. The two bills entry dated 31.7.98 and 18.8.98 were presented at the Customs for clearance...
Tag this Judgment!Ge Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Dee Pharma Limit ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)530; 4(1998)CLT608; [1999]96CompCas192(Delhi); 76(1998)DLT273; 1998(47)DRJ265
Usha Mehra, J.1. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioner can ask for appointment of a Receiver regarding the property of a Company against which reference has been registered by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR). 2. The petitioner has based its claim for the appointment of a Receiver primarily on the ground that respondent Company approached the petitioner to help it financially in obtaining plant and machinery on lease basis. Respondent Company represented itself to be financially sound and assured the petitioner that it would be able to meet its commitments. It persuaded the petitioner to agree to get on lease the plant and machinery which the respondent wanted to purchase. However, subsequently it was agreed between the parties that the plant and machinery would be hired by the petitioner for the respondent. In this regard Hire Purchase Agreement was executed between the parties. Term of the agreement indicated the owner of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Arya Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT63; [1999(81)FLR286]
K. Ramamoorthy, J.The petitioner has filed the writ petition claiming the following reliefs:(a) The records of the case may be summoned from the respondent Corporation and all orders, notings, files and correspondence refusing or denying to the petitioner equal consequential benefits of Selection Grade, revised pay-scales, arrears of pay and allowances and promotion. (b) A writ of mandamus directing the respondent Corporation to consider and give and grant the Selection Grade as Assistant Teacher to the petitioner with effect from 5.9.1971 with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances, revised pay-scales etc. (c) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Corporation to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Headmaster, Primary School with effect from the year 1973 with all consequential, benefits of seniority, pay and allowances, revised payscales, increments etc. as if the petitioner was actually promoted as such from the said date. (d) A writ of mand...
Tag this Judgment!iftakhar MobIn Anjum Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 77(1999)DLT205
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner applied for admission in B.Ed, course for the session 1997-98 in Jamia Millia Islamia. He appeared in the written test and also in the interview. Though he qualified for admission on the basis of merit he was denied admission on the ground that there was an intervening period of seven years between the last course undergone by him and the course to which admission was sought. The petitioner has produced as Annexure-A, a copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Admission Review Committee held on 16.10.1997. It shows that the Admission Review Committee decided against the admission of the petitioner to the B.Ed. course in view of the gap of seven years between the last course and the present course. According to the petitioner he submitted a representation dated 24.10.1997 to the Vice-Chancellor explaining that in his case the gap was only four years since the result of M. A. examination was declared only late in 1993. He claims to have submitted two m...
Tag this Judgment!Bhika Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1999]238ITR113(Delhi)
1. Heard finally. 2. Rule DB. 3. The petitioners seek a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to refund the amount of tax deducted from the amount of interest awarded to them under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The tax was deducted at source consistently with the obligation of the Land Acquisition Collector created by Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the petitioners, the amount of interest being not liable to tax, the Land Acquisition Collector was not justified in deducting the tax at source. 4. The issue is no more rest Integra in view of same pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector : [1997]224ITR551(SC) , wherein their Lordships have held that such an amount of interest on delayed payment of compensation determined under the Land Acquisition Act was a revenue receipt exigible to income-tax under Section 4 of the Act. However, the claimant would be entitled to spread over the income for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Safir Ahmed and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of D ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)376
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The 12 petitioners who were working in the Crescent Education School, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, had claimed the following reliefs:issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the service agreements kept at Annexure A3 of this petition; to issue appropriate writ, direction, directing respondents 3 and 4 to afford the pay and allowances and other benefits to the petitioners at par with any other aided and recognised educational institutions, to issue any appropriate, writ, direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to have the school under respondent No. 4 inspected and to taking appropriate act on against respondent No. 3 under the law for violation of the Delhi School Education Act, in allowing discriminatory treatment to their employees. 2. The School is un-aided. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973, the petitioners are entitled to all the benefits enjoyed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Goyal Mg Gases Ltd. and anr. Vs. Griesheim Gmbh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT737; 1999(48)DRJ58
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from taking any step in pursuance of the Share Purchase Agreement Dated 20.3.1997 and also in pursuance of the letter of offer dated 6.8.1998 to acquire shares of M/s. Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for short as BOCL), The plaintiff No.2 and the defendant entered into a commercial agreement on 12.5.1995 under the title 'Share Purchase and Co-operation Agreement'. A copy of the said agreement has been placed on record. Some of the relevant clauses which shall have some bearing with the context of the present application are extracted below:9. Non-Competition Clause.GGL and all Goyal Group Companies will co-operate in the Indian market with right to first refusal basis with MGG and will not for the duration of this co-operation support in any way-dire...
Tag this Judgment!