Delhi Court July 1999 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.
Kuldeep Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)606; 81(1999)DLT303
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.IA. 2889/88 in S. 1592/871. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, moved for condensation of delay in filing the objections to the award dated 29.10.1986. The ground taken for condensation of delay is that the concerned officer was under a bonafide impression that in this case objections had already been filed. This confusion arose because in a similar matter an award had been made, which was registered as suit No. 1591-A/87, to which objections have been filed. Counsel for the petitioner does not oppose the application for condensation of delay.2. For the reasons stated and in the interest of justice, application is allowed and the delay in filing the objections to the award is condoned.IA. 2889/88 stands disposed of.IA. 2890/881. By this order, I would be disposing of the objections filed by the Union of India to the award dated 29.10.1986, given by the Arbitrator Sh. J.S. Mundrey.2. The petitioner had been awarded a Zone contract for Zon...
S. Zooraster and Co. (Supplies) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT76; 1999(66)ECC77; 1999(114)ELT400(Del)
C.M. Nayar, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated August 4, 1983 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal, New Delhi upholding the orders dated May 24, 1980 and 20th February, 1981 respectively passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1961 with its registered office and Headquarters situated at Jaipur. Petitioner No. 2 is the Director of petitioner No. 1 company. In this petition the challenge is made to the levy of excise duly on the product manufactured by the petitioners, namely, woollen felt as an excisable item under Tariff Item No. 68 of Schedule I of the Central Excise and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Earlier the petitioner company was being charged excise duty on woollen felt under Item 21 as if...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Air France Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN219(Delhi)
ORDERArun Kumar, J.By this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions, stated to be one of law, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in facts in holding that the Explanationn added to section 9(1)(ii) is a substantive amendment and not clarificatory in nature and thereby giving the finding that the assessed acted in a bona fide manner in not deducting tax at source on French portion of the salary and was, thus, not covered under the provisions of section 201 (1 A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings should be cancelled on account of inordinate delay on the part of the revenue...
Satbir Kaur Vs. Brig. S. Devinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(53)DRJ129
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the following issue:'1. Whether, in view of the provision of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, the present suit is maintainable?'There is no dispute in between the parties that the plaintiff is daughter of the deceased S. Dalip Singh, who was the undisputed owner of the property in question. The plaintiff has got three brothers who are the defendants in this suit. Their mother has already expired. There is also no dispute about the fact that the entire house is not occupied by the members of the family and there are number of tenants, including a bank. The plaintiff claims 1/4 share in the property. An objection has been taken by the defendants that the suit is barred by Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short). Accordingly, on the basis of that objection the above-mentioned issue was framed.2. It would be appropriate here to reproduce Section 23 of the Act, which reads as und...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Air France Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR656(Delhi)
1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions, stated to be one of law, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84, for the opinion of thiscourt : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in facts in holding that the Explanationn added to Section 9(1)(ii) is a substantive amendment and not clarificatory in nature and thereby giving the finding that the assessed acted in a bona fide manner in not deducting tax at source on French portion of the salary and was thus not covered under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings should be cancelled on account of inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in taking action under Section 201(1A) whe...
Sanjay Gupta (Dr.) Vs. Dr. Shroffs Charity Eye Hospital
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: 85(2000)DLT27; 2000(53)DRJ399
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition against the respondent:- a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the clause whereby the management has reserved the right to terminate the services of its employees by giving one month's notice simplicities in the service conditions of its employees; b) issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent not to alter the service conditions of the petitioners, unilaterally to the prejudice of the petitioners; c) issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing them to dispense with the unfair practice of keeping their employees under contract for many years without regularisation; d) to issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner No. 2.' 2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent had bracketed the services in an arbitrary fashion and the respondent is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court, though a private o...
Kidarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)822; 80(1999)DLT540; 1999(50)DRJ490; ILR1999Delhi22
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this order, I propose to decide the following issue No. 4-A ordered to be tried as preliminary issue : 'Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?'2. Plaintiff, claiming itself to be a tenant of the 4th floor of the building known as 'Allahabad Bank Building' (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) has filed the present suit for the following reliefs:- '(i) For specific performance of the Agreement of Lease/Renewal of Lease up to November 30, 1998 with right of renewal thereafter as contained in the writings contained in the Agreement stated hereinabove; (ii) For mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to maintain the parking areas, stair-cases, common corridors, toilets in the building in a state of reasonable repairs and cleanliness;' 3. To appreciate the merits of the controversy, it will be necessary to give brief narrative of the material facts. In 1965, the suit premises were let out to the plaintiff under an unregistered...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.K. Bhaumik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR614(Delhi)
1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer to this court the following question, in respect of the assessment year 1992-93, for opinion :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessed did not enter into any adventure in the nature of trade and thereafter allowing the claim of the assessed and chargeability of the assessor's income to capital gain and allow ability for exemption under Section 54E of the Income-tax Act ?'Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the question proposed is not one of law fit for reference to this court.2. Though it is true that the question whether profit in a transaction has arisen out of adventure in the nature of trade is a mixed question of law and fact but it is equally well-settled that the expression 'adventure in the nature of tra...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prestige Wires
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT471TriDel
2. The respondents herein were availing of Modvat credit on certain inputs for utilisation in their final product, super enamelled wire and bare copper wire prior to 1-4-1996. They intended to avail of the benefit of full exemption under Notification 1/93-C.E., dated 1-4-1996.Therefore, they surrendered their licence to the Central Excise authorities which was kept hanging by the authorities stating that they would have to verify the position. Consequently, a letter dated 25-6-1996 was issued to the respondents herein on the strength of the provisions of Rule 57H(5) stating that the credit taken by them on inputs lying in stock with them or on inputs contained in finished goods lying in stock with them on 31-3-1996 to the tune of Rs. 17,558.64 should be paid first by them through PLA. Then alone their registration certificate shall stand cancelled otherwise it will not be cancelled. The respondents herein did not follow the direction in the said letter dated 25-6-1996. Hence a show ca...
Mamta Cement Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT157TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the finding of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had held that "I am of the opinion that they can of course switch over to Notification No. 5/94, dated 1-3-1994, but only after they have availed the exemption notification in full i.e., upto the clearances of Rs. 75 lakhs. Only after that they can opt for another exemption Notification i.e., 5/94. This has also been clarified vide the Govt, of India letter No. 354/8/88-TRU, dated 12-4-1989." 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement. Cement was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 2502.29. They have filed a Classification List stating clearly that they were availing the benefit of Notification No.1/93 for clearances upto Rs. 50 lakhs and beyond clearances of 50 lakhs, they were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.5/94.3. Arguing the Appeal, Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Adv...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »