Delhi Court September 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.
Classic Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT930TriDel
1. This stay application is filed by the applicants for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 30,00,511/- and stay of the recovery proceedings.3. Arguing for the Revenue, Shri M.P. Singh, JDR submitted that the issue is with reference to the benefit of exemption Notification No.202/88-C.E. in respect of the goods namely bars. He submitted that the very issue has come-up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Glorious Industries in Appeal No. E/556/93-B1 and the Tribunal as per Order No. 781/99-B, dated 29-7-1999 rejected the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was not available to the Pipes and Tubes made out of the bars. He submitted that accordingly, strong prima facie case is in favour of the Revenue. Concurring with the arguments advanced by the JDR, this stay application filed by the party is hereby rejected. However, in the interest of justice, we direct the party to deposit the duty am...
Bhushan Steel and Strip Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT964TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 8-5-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit of Modvat credit is denied to the appellants only on the ground that Modvat credit was not taken within six months from the issuance of duty-paying documents.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the goods received by the appellants were duly entered in the R.G. 23A Pt.I. He submits that the Notification No. 28/95-C.E., dated 29-6-1995 was issued amending Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules providing a restriction of six months for taking Modvat credit from the date of issuance of the duty paying documents. He submits that in this case the Modvat credit was taken after the issuance of the notification. He submits that the Tribunal in the case of National Steel Industries v.C.C.E reported in 1999 (31) RLT 191, in a similar situation, where the goods were received prior to the issuance of Noti...
Harbhagwan Dass Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)211; 82(1999)DLT242
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition is directed against the Order dated December 10, 1975 passed by Smt. Kusum Prasad, Officer with delegated powers of Central Government, Department of Rehabilitation, New Delhi by which the application of the petitioner under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was dismissed. Application for setting aside of the Order was also dismissed on March 3, 1976. 2. The facts stated in the Order of Shri B.B.Agarwal, Assistant Settlement Officer with delegated powers of Settlement Commissioner, Jamnagar House, New Delhi read as follows:- 'Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the property No.B-VIII-595, Lakar Bazar, Ludhiana was an acquired evacuee property and is comprised of two shops and a residential portion. One of the shops was allotted to Shri Har Bhagwan das. The other shop and residential portion was allotted to Shri Arjan Dev Khanna. Both of them are displaced persons and claimants. In the first ins...
Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-iv Vs. Union Tyres, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)238; (1999)157CTR(Del)286; 82(1999)DLT584; [1999]240ITR556(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not in law call for remand report in respect of items 1,3,8,10 and (sic) mentioned in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 4-5-1973 ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1967-68 for which the accounting period ended on 31st March, 1967. The assessed is an individual and deals in tyres. In his return for the relevant assessment year, the assessed declared a loss of Rs.4,552/-, which was revised to Rs.3,500/-. The said loss was computed by applying the rate of gross profit @ 0.9% on the total sales of Rs. 11.75 lakhs. During the course of assessment proce...
Naimat Kaur Anand and ors. Vs. M/S. Decon Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)250; 82(1999)DLT389; 1999(51)DRJ428
ORDERVikramjit Sen, J.1. Both these applications have been filed for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 15.9.1995, can be disposed of together. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 it is set out that the Written Statement had been filed and issues had also been framed. It is stated in the application under O.9 R.13 that the Defendant/Applicant came to know of the ex-parte decree on 7.11.1996. It is further averred in this application that on 19.10.1996 the Applicant was out of station and Shri P.M. Singh, an employee of the Defendant Company was present in the showroom when the Bailiff arrived there for executing the ex-parte decree, and that a cheque was handed over by Shri P.M. Singh, an employee of Decon Lighting Pvt. Ltd. on presentation, this cheque was dishonoured as payment had been stopped by the Judgment-Debtor/Applicant/Defendant. The only reason for setting aside the ex-parte orders is contained in para 2 of the application which reads as und...
Ulka Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Spring Valley Fruit Products Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)28
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. This is suit for recovery of Rs. 12,59,426/- and, as disclosed in the plaint, is predicated on a written contract between the parties whereby the plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant as its Advertising Agent. The Plaintiff was entitled to claim 15 per cent as its Agency Commission on the gross amount of bills in connection with its publicity campaign. Various bills were raised between May 1988 and June parties and as on 10.5.1989 a sum of Rs. 6,83,160.81 was outstanding in favor of the plaintiff and against the Defendant. This, together with interest thereon, being Rs. 5,76,266/- constitutes the claim in the suit. It is further stated in the plaint that the Defendant vide its letter dated 7.12.1989, acknowledged the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,83,160.81 and undertook to clear it; a similar assurance was contained in the another letter dated 7.12.1989 of the Defendant to the Plaintiff. When payment was not received the Plaintiff caused a legal notice dated...
Permanent Building Management and Fund Committee Vs. Naraina Industrie ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)466; 82(1999)DLT353
ORDERVikramjit Sen, J.1. This application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 was filed along with the plaint praying inter alias that the Defendants be restrained from letting out any portion of building of the Association bearing No. A-5, Narayana Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. At the time of the arguments this was the only prayer pressed.2. It was contended by Mr. V.K. Makhija, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff that the power to let out these premises was not contained in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Defendant No. 1. He submitted that in the Defendant's application I.A. No. 980/1999 in para 7 it has been stated that Plaintiff No.1 'went to the extent of recommending amendment to the Memorandum of Association to insert a clause for letting out of the building of the Association,' and thereforee this assertion stands admitted by the Defendants. He further submitted that at present, the DDA did not allow the letting out of premises beyond 40% of the total ar...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)723; 82(1999)DLT648; 1999(51)DRJ363
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has impugned the judgment and order dated 24th August, 1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 36 of 1971. By the impugned judgment and order, it was directed that the Award dated 16th July, 1970 passed by Respondent No. 1, the Industrial Tribunal be set aside and it was held that the termination of the services of Respondent No. 2 Workman was void ab initio and inoperative. The learned Single Judge further directed that the Workman continues in service with consequential benefits, namely, full back wages. 2. The Workman was initially employed by the Appellant as a Retainer Crew Conductor on 25th February, 1966. He was thereafter appointed on 2nd November, 1966 as a Conductor on probation for one year. The probation period was extended till 31st October, 1968. On 29th/30th October, 1968 the services of the Workman were terminated by the Appellant in exercis...
Sham Lal Vs. Shri Hukum Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)684; 83(2000)DLT170
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present petition arises out of the order dated 30.3.1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 44 of 1990. By the aforesaid order the Civil Judge closed the evidence of the defendant and fixed the suit for final arguments. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the defendant as petitioner filed the present petition, on which I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. On 1.10.1997 the suit was directed to be listed for recording the entire evidence of the defendant on 3.11.1997. When the suit was listed on 3.11.97 on witness of the defendant was present nor any witness was served for the said date. A request was made on behalf of the petitioner/defendant that only one more witness was to be examined. On the basis of the aforesaid prayer the trial court fixed the suit for evidence of the defendant on 2.12.97. It was made clear therein that no further adjournment would be granted. On 2.12.97 the lawyers were on strike and accordingly th...
Pearey Lal Vs. Chiranji Lal Ramji Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)737; 84(2000)DLT583
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.3.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 128/1993 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 14, Rule 5 praying for amendment of the issues framed in the suit and for placing the burden of proof correctly on the concerned parties. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit seeking for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner/defendant to remove himself and his family members and belongings from the premises namely - first floor of 5579, Naya Bazzar, Delhi and for handing over the possession of the aforesaid premises to the present respondent. The petitioner herein filed the written statement and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed in the suit in the year 1996. Immediately thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 seeking for amendment of the issues and for placing the...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »