Delhi Court September 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.
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Ashok Diesh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ499
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed on 28.2.1983 by Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant's appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on 21.7.1980 by Shri P.D. Jarwal, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.2. Facts in brief are that Shri Ashok Diesh filed a suit seeking decree for injunction against the defendant/appellant from demolishing the property bearing Nos.95, 97,99, 101 and 103 situated at Baird Road, New Delhi. The plaintiff alleged that the property was inherited by him and Shri Janardan Diesh and was assessed to municipal taxes. Certain officials of the appellant came to the spot on 18.11.1978 with a view todemolish the portion of the property shown in red colour without any notice. They were appraised that the property is old one and no new constructions were made Since they were adamant to demolish the property, a cause had accrued to him to claim decree for i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.L. Narang and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR718(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. The questions referred in these reference applications being identical this judgment shall govern both of them.2. Pursuant to this court's directions in I. T. C.s Nos. 115 and 116 of 1976, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-D (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question, in each case, pertaining to the assessment year 1966-67, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 140A(3) ?'3. The background facts, which are almost undisputed, are as follows :For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessed, i.e., M. L. Narang and O. P. Narang, who were partners in the firm, Narang and Co., submitted their returns of income. As admitted income-tax in terms of Section 140A was not paid in each of the cases, notices were issued to the respective assessed to show ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.L. Narang and O.P. Narang
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: [2001]114TAXMAN539(Delhi)
Pasayat, C.J. Questions referred in these reference applications being identical, this judgment shall govern both of them.Pursuant to this court's directions in ITCs No. 115 and 116/76, under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question, in each case, pertaining to assessment year 1966-67, for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in cancelling the penalty levied under section 140A(3) ?'2. Background facts, which are almost undisputed, are as follows :For the assessment year 1966-67, assessees, i.e., M.L. Narang and O.P. Narang, who were partners in the firm Narang & Co. submitted their returns of income. As admitted, income-tax in terms of section 140A was not paid in each of the cases, notices were issued to the respective assessees to show cause why penal action as contemplated under section 140A(3) should not be taken. Matter wa...
Dr. Radhey Shayam Aggarwal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Del)50
Dalveer Bhandari, J.The petitioner has approached this court under section 482 of the Cr.PC for setting aside/quashing the order dated 20-8-1998, passed by Shri M.K. Gupta, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in Criminal Complaint No 5164/89 (Case No. 198/94) titled as Income Tax Officer v. Radhey Shyam Aggarwal.2. It is incorporated in the petition that the petitioner, Dr. Radhey Shyam Aggarwal is a medical practitioner having a nursing home at A-22, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. The petitioner is an income-tax assessee. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under .3. The petitioner received cash loans during the assessment year 1987-88 from Rakesh Aggarwal and Renu Gupta. Details of the cash loans taken during that period is set out as under :S.No.Name of the persons from whom loan was acceptedAmount of cash Rs.Date of receipt1.Rakesh Aggarwal10,00016-10-19862.Renu Gupta 4,00016-10-19863.Renu Gupta 5,00021-11-19864.Renu Gupta 5,00028-11-...
Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC613
1. Assessee is the appellant. He cleared certain quantity of yarn for export on bond. The goods so cleared could not be exported. He sought permission to divert it for domestic sale. Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner conceded his request by order dated 23.4.98. In that order, he directed the assessee to pay Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,86,631 on the value declared on A.R. 4. He went on to state in that order that further differential duty, if any, should also be paid in terms of Rule 9A(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Pursuant to the authorisation given by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, goods were sold in domestic market on subsequent dates. The sale price was lower than the price shown in A.R. 4. So, the assessee filed an application for refund of the excess duty amount paid. That claim has been rejected by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Appeal against it proved futile. Hence, this appeal.2. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel represent...
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT873TriDel
1. This appeal filed in 1995 happened to be kept pending for securing clearance from the Committee on disputes. Committee on Disputes have already allowed the appellant to pursue the matter before the Tribunal.Today, the matter came up alongwith the petition praying for stay of operation of the impugned order. In other words, the prayer of the appellant was to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit as contemplated by Section 35F of the Act.2. We heard the learned representative of the appellant and learned Departmental Representative. On hearing them at length and on perusing the records, we feel that the appeal itself is to be disposed of because the issue involved is virtually covered by earlier decisions.3. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad, by his order-in-original No. MP (7/94) 31 of 1995 dated 30.08.1995, confirmed a demand of Rs. 33,04,214.08 under Rule 9(2) of the Rules read with Section 11A of the Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,25,000/- on the assessee ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gwalior Electrical Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT833TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether coils made from Double Paper Covered (DPC) wire are chargeable to excise duty.2. Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR, submitted, that the Respondents, M/s.Gwalior Electricals Industries manufacture power distribution transformers and parts thereof; that they were also undertaking the repairs of old transformers in which they were using L.V./H.V. coils made from DPC wire; a show cause notice was issued to them for demanding duty on DPC wire used as insulated wire; that the Dy.Commissioner confirmed duty of Rs. 69,374/-and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules holding that the coil is not marketable and DPC wires in the form of LV/HV coils continue to be classified under Heading No. 85.44 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, attracting excise duty @ of 25%. He, further, mentioned that, however, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order holding that the findings of the Dy. Commissioner are c...
Mani Dass Sharma and Others Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1181; 88(2000)DLT52; 2000(55)DRJ619
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. These appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pertain to determination of the amount of compensation payable for acquisition of land situate in village Mandawali Fazalpur. Common questions arise for determination and, thereforee, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Under the general notification issued on 13.11.1959 under Section 4 of the Act Land situated in village Mandawali Fazalpur was also notified for being acquired for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12.7.1966. Collector, Land Acquisition made and published his award No. 983. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered, reference were sought by the claimants. The same were answered by reference Courts separately by various awards. Still feeling dissatisfied with the decision rendered by the Reference Court in which the fair mark...
Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. Vs. Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)65; 87(2000)DLT612; 2001RLR132
ORDERCrl. M. (M) 800/99 & Crl. M. No. 1677/991. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that cause of action in this case having taken place in Kanpur, Court of Delhi have no jurisdiction. He further submits that because the cheque has been returned on the ground that the same is 'out of date', no offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is made out. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 29th September, 1999 in Criminal Appeal No. 1015/99, wherein the Supreme Court has while dealing with the facts stated therein returned its findings on the question of law, namely, as to which is the Court that will have jurisdiction to try the offence where various components are involved. The question has been answered as follows: 'The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) Drawing of ...
Nirmal Kumari Gupta Vs. Sh. Ramotar Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi86; 2000(57)DRJ41
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of is 627/99 filed under Order XXXIX Rules, 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff and is 1275/99 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of Allahabad Bank, defendant No. 4. 2. Prayer clause of the suit which was instituted on 28th April, 1993 against Ramotar Aggarwal, Rajesh Sutodia and Bimal Kumar Singhania, defendants reads as under:- 'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that :- a) that a decree for specific performance be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to execute the sale deed/title deeds of the half of the property No. 2/47, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. b) a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their agents restraining the defendants, their agents, attorneys and associates from dispossessing the plaintiff from the...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »