Delhi Court July 2000 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.
international Talkie Equip. Co. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT345TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under the provisions of Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot. In this case, a show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 52,63,999.43 P from M/s. Kinotone or M/s.International Talkie Equipment Company Ltd. (the appellants herein) on the ground that M/s. Kinotone (Central Excise license holder for manufacture of excisable goods such as parts of Cine Projector Equipment) M/s. Cine Lamp (SSI unit engaged in the manufacture of parts of Cine projectors viz Arc lamp) availing full exemption under Notification Nos. 83/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983,85/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985 and No. 175/86- C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and the appellants herein were inter-linked and interconnected units each controlled by one Adalja family and had engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods viz. complete Cinema projectors an...
Mahesh Chandra Sharma and ors. Vs. N. Appukuttan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT659; 2000(56)DRJ387
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. A suit has been field by the Plaintiff seeking a decree of possession against the Defendant in respect of a part of bungalow No. 5, Doctors Lane, New Delhi-110001 as shown in red in the Plan attached to the plaint. Along-with the plaint a copy of the Legal Notice dated 8.7.1997 has also been filed, the third paragraph of which is important and reads as under: 'That taking benefit of the above said litigation which started in the year 1973 you have made unauthorised construction of a room in front of Lavatory Block of the back side rooms of the house on the ground floor. The room unauthorizedly constructed by you is of approximate measurement of 10'x12'. The Lavatory Block was meant for the use of four persons residing in four rooms but you have now started using it yourself and are not allowing to use the same to others.'2. The suit was filed in May 1998. A perusal of the Site Plan shows that the portion in occupation of the Defendant included a room, verandah...
Union Bank of India Vs. Krishan Kumar Sureka and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT792; 2000(56)DRJ655
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. A jural nodus has cropped up in this litigation. A plaint had initially been filed in this Court for Specific Performance and Damages. Since the jurisdictional value of the dispute was approximately Rs. 36 lakhs, the case was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal in 1995. Proceedings continued in the said Tribunal and the parties submitted to its jurisdiction. Issues were struck by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. It appears that an objection had been raised pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the ground that it had no power to try the suit for Specific Performance of the contract. Eventually on 18.5.1998 the Applicant/Plaintiff-Bank stated that it did not press the relief for Specific Performance, since such relief was not available under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The relief for the passing of a decree of Rs. 36,20,722.92, as originally prayed in the ...
Chintamni Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT547; 2000(56)DRJ563
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner, Chintamni, has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant Freedom Fighters Pension under Swatantrata Sainani Samman Pension Scheme w.e.f. 2.11.1981, the date of his application. The petitioner claims to have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 37 of the Hyderabad defense Act, when he participated in the Hyderabad Freedom Struggle. As per the petitioner on 18.1.1352 (Fasli) he was arrested and was admitted in the District Prison at Nanded on 27.1.1352 (Fasli). He is stated to have been transferred to the Aurangabad Central Prison on 13.8.1352 (Fasli) till he was released on 3.4.1952 (Fasli). 2. Respondent-Union of India rejected the petitioner's case for grant of pension on 7.8.1986, on the ground that he had not produced the jail certificate from Aurangabad Central Prison. Petitioner, in these circumstances, filed the writ petition on 31.1.1997. In the meanwhile, ...
Anubha Vs. Vikas Agrawal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT713; 2000(56)DRJ452
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. By order dated March 9, 2000 the case had been adjourned to 1.5.2000, inter alia, for recording the Defendant's statement under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure and for consideration of cause, if any, in respect of Contempt of Court proceedings. Earlier, by orders dated 5.11.1999, the Defendant had been restrained from proceeding further in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U. S. A. for a period of thirty days. Those Orders had not been complied with. The Defendant had agitated the matter in Appeal before the Division Bench on 9.3.2000. On 9.5.2000 this Appeal was withdrawn on the grounds that an application for recalling the Order dated 9th March, 2000 would be filed before this Court. I. A. 3684 of 2000 was filed on 28.4.2000 seeking exemption from personal appearance of the Defendant on 1.5.2000. The ground on which this was sought to be sustained was that the Defendant was suffering from certain ailment and had been advised not to travel. Mr....
Chaman Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi 4(1), New Delhi and An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Del)192; [2000]245ITR730(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C. J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). For the assessment year 1980-81 certain additions were made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash found during search in petitioner's premises and unexplained expenditure. Matter was taken in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short 'CIT(A)]. Relief was granted on several heads by said authority. Matter was carried by the Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi (in short the 'Tribunal'). Cross-objections were also filed by the assessee-petitioner. 2. Tribunal upheld the finding recorded by the CIT(A), so far as the relief granted for a sum of Rs. 56,000/- in respect of cash found at the time of search. So far as his claim regarding loans from seven parties is concerned, the Tribunal found that positive materials were not produced before the CIT(A) and thereforee it was not possible on its part to record any definite finding....
Radhika Dhir and anr. Vs. Lt. Col. J.C. Dhir (Retd.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)411; 86(2000)DLT577; II(2000)DMC232; 2000(56)DRJ454
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a suit for maintenance filed by the two unmarried daughters against their father, a retired Army Officer. The father and mother of the two plaintiffs are not staying together and the plaintiffs are staying with their mother. In an Order passed by this Court in S.No. 906/97, this Court has restrained the defendant from entering the residence of the plaintiffs and their mother. The plaintiffs have averred that they or their mother does not have any movable or immovable property and the plaintiffs have averred that besides 5 items of immovable property detailed by them in their application the defendant has income of Rs. 10,000/- per month from investments and the pension of about Rs. 7,500/- per month. 2. During the course of the pendency of this matter, the parties were required to file their affidavit of income and the affidavits of income of both the parties have been filed. From the affidavit of the plaintiffs' mother it is seen that the income of the ...
Space Capital Service Ltd. Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)476; [2000]101CompCas437(Delhi)
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner has prayed that interim orders be passed restraining the respondents from selling, parting with possession or transferring the Waste Heat Recovery System Equipment, leased by the petitioner to the respondents and has further sought relief due to the defaults of the respondents in repayment of Lease rentals and, thereforee, sought permission for the Receiver to be appointed by this Court to take over the possession of the said equipment which was given on lease to the respondents under Lease Agreement dated 24th March, 1993. This application has been resisted by the respondents/lessees by stating in their reply that the appointment of a Receiver is hit by the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied up...
Sh. L.N. Jaggi and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)485
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1992, seeking for a decree of permanent injunction & declaration in respect of the suit premises No. B-71, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi. 2. It is stated that on 10th December, 1980, the plaintiffs have purchased the property No. B-71, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, measuring approximately 1,000 sq. yds. by means of a Regular Sale Deed dated 8.12.1980. 3. The name of defendant No. 2 has already been deleted from the array of parties vide Order dated 21st July, 1997. The matter was proceeded ex-parte against defendant No. 1 vide Order dated 17th July, 1995. Thereafter the plaintiffs have filed their evidence by way of affidavit on 13.11.1997, 11.2.1999 and 17.9.1999. 4. The plaintiff No. 1, Mr. L. N. Jaggi, who is one of the co-owners of the suit property, has filed evidence by way of affidavit dated 11th November, 1997 on behalf of all the plaintiffs. The averments made in the plaint have been supported by the...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-v Vs. Sita Rani and Shri Davinder Ku ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)512; (2000)162CTR(Del)86; 86(2000)DLT585; [2000]245ITR233(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. On being moved under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, ('the Tribunal' for short) has referred the following question for opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 55,000/- imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 31.3.1979, as without jurisdiction and invalid in law, after the deletion of Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 with effect from 1-4-1976 ?'2. The factual position, which is almost undisputed, so far as relevant for the purpose of the adjudication, is as follows: For the assessment year 1973-74, before the completion of assessment, by order dated 24th September, 1976, notice was issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with 271(I)(C) of the Act on 30th March, 1976 for alleged concealment...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »