Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 9 of about 234 results (0.017 seconds)Rakesh Sinha Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT533; 1998(47)DRJ595
Devinder Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. instituted on 27.5.1998, direction is sought against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to register a case against respondents Nos. 3 to 8 for the cognizable offences, alleged to have been committed by them and further to restore possession to the petitioner of the premises bearing No. 80/77-A Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.2. The petitioner claimed that he had been working as a Music Teacher in Malviya Public School and was allotted the aforementioned school premises in December, 1992. He had been requesting the school authorities for increase in salary and to confirm his services, which was not done. After the death of B.K.Chawla in January, 1990, it is alleged that his sons, namely respondents Nos. 5 and 6 came to his premises Along with respondent No. 7 on 28th and 29th January, 1998 and threatened the petitioner that in case the premises are not vacated, he would be killed. A c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Prayaas C/O Indian Council of
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC284Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the respondents. However, in view of the issue being small and of very short compass, we have heard ld. JDR in support of the Revenue's appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : The respondent organisation, a rehabilitation centre for handicapped children and a project of the Indian Council for Child Welfare, had filed bill of entry for the clearance of a consignment containing one set of EMG-EP Dual Channel System claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty provided under Notification No. 36/96, dated 23-7-1996. The original authority denied the benefit of the said exemption notification on the ground that the imported goods have the capability to perform the combined functions of both EMG & EP system and such a combined machine is not included in the table of the notification, although it is admitted that these machines having separate function of both EP and EMG systems are separately exempted from payment of duty.3. The lo...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Shah Devchand and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC281Tri(Delhi)
1. Matter called. None for the respondents. We have, therefore, heard ld. J.D.R. Shri R.S.Sangia, in support of the Revenue's appeal. Issue involved in the present matter is whether the notice of less charge demand of duty was served within six months or not from the date of payment of duty. The lower appellate authority has merely relied upon the possibility that the less charged demand notice would have been served after the time limit specified under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, on a point being raised by the respondents that the date of payment was 29th March, 1982 and the demand notice was issued on 24th September, 1982. We are of the view that on this point, the demand notice should not have been set aside. The lower appellate authority ought to have asked the respondents as to which date the respondents received the notice of demand. We further observe that the respondents are not denying the receipt of the notice of demand. Once this fact have been noted, they would ha...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Imperial Textile Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT767TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order dated 13-10-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The dispute is in respect of classification of product known as hand-loom reeds. The Asstt. Collector has classified the item as "strips". It was contended on behalf of the assessee that they purchase round wires from the open market, and flatten such wires with the aid of rollers and that flattened wires are commercially known as wires and not a strips. It was also their submission that there is difference between the reed blades and handloom reeds. On an appeal filed by the assessee, the Collector (Appeals) has observed that since the item "strips" has been defined in the Central Excise Tariff, the Asstt.Collector should have examined the product in the light of the definition. He also observed that more instructions contained in letter File No. 139/68/85-EX-4, dated 25-5-1987 clarifying that "reed blades which is cold rolled and she...
Tag this Judgment!Ravinder Kumar Khanna and anr. Vs. National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT651
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. On a petition filed under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act the Arbitrator filed his award dated 19.12.1991 along with proceedings in this Court. Notice of filing of the award was served upon the parties and respondent No. 1 has thereafter filed its objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act.2. The case set up in the objections is that the respondent had entered into an agreement with M/s. Metal Pressing of which petitioner No. 1 claims to be the sole proprietor on 27.2.1985 for fabrication, manufacture and erection of semi-circular pressing of diameter 10.7 m at Aamruchi near Dul in Kaishtwar, District Doda, J&K; and fixing C.G.I. sheets complete in all respects. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties the petitioner served a notice dated 1.5.1989 upon the Chief Engineer of Dulhasti Project of respondent No. 1 reference of the same to an Arbitrator. The Chief Engineer upon receipt of this communication from the petitioner wrote...
Tag this Judgment!Tilak Raj Katyal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)781; 76(1998)DLT358; 1998(47)DRJ246; (1999)121PLR7; 1999(1)RLR227
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the petitioner praying for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes arising between the parties herein. The petitioner was awarded with a work contract by the respondent for providing a Security Wall and Fencing/Gate Hill Mukkunimala at Trivendrum. During the course of execution of the works, certain disputes arose between the parties. The aforesaid disputes/claims of the petitioner which were stated to have arisen have been set out in paragraph 6 of the petition. The petitioner also stated that the contract between the parties contains an arbitration agreement being clause No.17. A copy of the said arbitration clause is also annexed to the petition as Annexure P-5. Since the aforestated disputes have arisen between the parties the petitioner has sought for adjudication of the said disputes through the process of arbitration in terms of clause 17 placed on record. 2. During ...
Tag this Judgment!Surjit Kaur Vs. Shri Sohan Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)772; 4(1998)CLT633; 76(1998)DLT351; 1998(47)DRJ319
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This appeal has been filed to impugn the judgment dated September 29, 1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. The learned Judge dismissed the petition for grant of probate of the Will of late Smt. Narinjan Kaur who died on October 28, 1979. It was alleged that deceased Smt.Narinjan Kaur widow of late Shri Ishwar Singh was a resident of New Delhi and during her life time she had executed her Will dated October 9, 1979 bequeathing her property in favor of the appellant who is one of the daughters. Besides the appellant, the deceased also left behind two sons Sohan Singh and Mohan Singh, one more daughter Surinder Kaur and six children of pre-deceased daughter who was cited as near relations. Notice of the petition was issued to the relations. Both the sons and daughter contested the petition alleging that the Will was not genuine. They asserted that the deceased had executed another Will dated September 16, 1979 in favor of Mohan Singh and the deceased duri...
Tag this Judgment!Kanta and anr. Vs. Ahmed
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT787; 1998(47)DRJ681
C.M. Nayar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgments dated 11th July, 1975 passed by Shri M.A.Khan, 6th Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and May 19, 1978 of Shri P.K.Bahri, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent brought the eviction petition against Goverdhan Lal on the grounds covered by Clauses (e)and (j) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said Goverdhan Lal was proceeded against ex-parte vide Order dated 16th September, 1970 and an Order for ex-parte eviction was subsequently passed on 24th September,1970. The application which is the subject matter of the present proceedings for setting aside of that Order was moved before the learned Rent Controller on 26th September, 1970. The pleas raised in the application are referred to in paragraph 2 of the Order passed by the Additional Rent Controller which reads as follows: -'2 It is alleged that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kabirdas Investment Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ389
K.C. Lahoti, J.1. The Revenue has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following three questions of law for the opinion of the High Court.1. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that interest paid on loans borrowed by the assessed is not to be apportioned between the income from the business and income from dividends and that this is fully adjustable against business income only. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of deduction under Section 80M, it was the gross dividend income that should be considered, especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Distributors (Baroda) Pvt Ltd v UOI 155 ITR 126 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law and on facts in confirming the order of CIT(A).' 2. The above said three questions are referable to assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Mrs. Sheila Marett
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN425(Delhi)
ORDERLahoti, J. By this petition under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the revenue seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of the case and refers the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court:'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in interpreting the provisions of section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act and rule 1BB of the Wealth tax Rules that in respect of same property, the valuation could be made partly with respect to section 7(4) and partly with respect to rule 1BB ?'2. The respondent- assessed is an individual. She has a house property situated at B-96, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi. She filed her return of wealth for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 showing the value of the property at Rs. 3,86,750. The assessing officer did not accept the valuation and made a reference under section 16A of the Act. The Assistant Valuation Officer vide his report dated 29-1-1990 determined the fair market value of the property at Rs. 5,1...
Tag this Judgment!