Delhi Court April 2004 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.
Delhi Housing Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT246
R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional District Judge dated 27.5.1997. The land of the appellant measuring 2 bighas & 7 biswas, comprising in Khasra No. 191 min situated in the revenue State of village Gharaunda Neemka Bangar was acquired by the Government vide notifications dated 7.3.1988 issued tinder Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'), though surprisingly the possession of the land was taken by the Government several years before the acquisition on 1.10.1976. The Land Acquisition Collector relying upon an earlier award No. 25/87-88 in respect of the land of the same village which was acquired vide a notification dated 5.8.1985 assessed the market value of the appellant's land @ Rs. 19,500/- per bigha. On reference, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation marginally by Rs. 150/- per bigha and awarded compensation @ of Rs. 19650/- per bigha. Dissatisfied with the sa...
In Re: Allianz Capital and Management Services Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT904; [2005]63SCL496(Delhi)
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Sections 100, 101 and 102 of Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner M/s. Allianz Capital and Management Services Ltd. seeks approval of the Minutes to Transfer of Capital Reserves to Profit and Loss Account asset out in para 12 of petition. Special Resolution passed in the extra ordinary general meeting of petitioner company held on 29.11.2003. First the Articles of Association of the Company were altered and Sub-clause49-A was added authorizing the company to reduce its Share Capital. In the other Special Resolution passed on the same day the balance in Share Premium Account amounting to Rs. 686.92 lacs and debentures forfeited Account to the tune of Rs. 146.56 lacs transferred to Profit and Loss Accounts. The resolutions read as under:'Resolves that the Articles of Association of Company, be and are hereby, altered by adding the following new Sub-clause 49-A: 49A : Subject to the provision of the Companies Act, 1956, as amended up to date, the c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Phillips Petroleum International Corpor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)295; [2005]272ITR355(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 77,986 incurred by the non-resident assessed in converting its rupee earnings into foreign currency for remittance abroad under the terms of the agreement with its Indian collaborators is an admissible business expenditure?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessed for remittance abroad of income earned in India is laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business and is an admissible deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessed is a non-resident corporation having its headquarters in the Republic of Panama and a branch office at N...
Dy. Cit Vs. Rahoul Siemssen Engg. (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN100(Delhi)
ORDERThis appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that he has erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,58,544 on the basis that no concealment was involved.2. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.3. On careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, I find that the assessed has claimed deduction of interest payment made to the department under sections 217, 201 (1A) in assessment year 1987-88 and under sections 220(2), 234B, 201(1A) and 220(3) in assessment year 19909 1, but the same was disallowed by the assessed company being not deductible. The matter went to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) re-examined the issue and noticed that the assessed had debited this interest payment from taxable income, hence it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that at any moment ...
Himalyan Vegi Fruits Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT477TriDel
1. In these 3 appeals filed by M/s. Himalyan Vegi Fruits Ltd. the issue involved is whether Sugar Syrup coming into existence at the intermediary stage of manufacture of their finished product is chargeable to Excise duty.2. Shri Sandeep Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Squash, Juices, Fruit Drinks, Tinned Fruits, Jams, etc.; that sugar which is one of the inputs for manufacture of these items is added after dissolving it in water so that impurities/foreign particles can be removed; that the show cause notices were issued to them for demanding the duty on sugar syrup; that the Asstt. Commissioner dropped the demand following the earlier Order-in-Original No. 68/98, dated 29-9-98 passed by the Dy. Commissioner wherein it has been held that as per the Board's Circular No. 75/75/94-CX., dated 7-11-94 only those sugar syrups in which preservatives are added have a shelf life and since in the present case no preservatives have been added sugar syrup does n...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nabha Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC160
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original confirming the duty in respect of the short found goods, with penalty.2. I have heard both the sides. The bare perusal of the record shows that the factory premises of the respondents was visited by the Central Excise officers on 25.7.2000. On verification of the stock of the raw material and finished goods, shortage of 8.835 MTs of non-alloy steel ingots was detected. Similarly, some shortage of runners and risers was also detected that the spot. These shortages were admitted by Shri Ajay Goyal, Director of the respondents and the entire duty involved on both the shortages was debited by the respondents. The plea of the respondents that no actual weighment was done for arriving at the correct shortage of the goods detailed above and that the quantity has been arrived at, on estimation basis has been wrongly accepted by the Commiss...
Rungta Irrigation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC160
1. These are two appeals arising out of different Order-in-Appeals involving the issue of classification of HDPE pipes, whether under sub-Heading 8424.91 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. or under sub-Heading 39.17 as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri K.J. Singh, learned Advocate submitted that the issue involved in these appeals has been decided in favour of assessee by the Tribunal vide Final' Order No. A/194/2004-NB(C) dated 20.2.2004 following the earlier Final Order No. 96/2004-NB(B) dated 18.1.2004; that the Appellate Tribunal has upheld the classification of the impugned goods under sub-Heading 8424.91. The second Appeal has been filed by the Revenue as the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original under which the products manufactured by M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. was classified under Heading No. 39.17.3. The Tribunal has held in the earlier case of M/s. Rungta Irrigation Ltd. Vide Final Order No. 96/2004-...
Smt. Anupama Vs. Shri Bhagwan Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT143; 2004(77)DRJ573
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts of the present case are indeed singular. The predecessor of the revisionist, who is respondent No. 1., had filed a suit for issuance of a permanent injunction. There was some hearing which took place on 14.10.2000, and the Suit was adjourned to 5.12.2000. In the interregnum, however, the plaintiff died on 2.11.2000. Obviously, it was impossible for the plaintiff to appear on 5.12.2000, although his Legal Representatives could have done so. As there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, the Suit was dismissed in default on that date. The Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff filed two applications on 6.1.2001. The first was an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC which quite clearly was beyond the period of limitation which is thirty days from the date of Order. The second application was under Order XXII Rule 3.2. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied on Laxminarayan and Anr. v. Laxmibai AIR 1935 Nag 189 in which it has ...
Prem Chand Goel Vs. Krishan Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT477; 2004(74)DRJ487
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Crl.M.C.2137/1998 is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.(R) No.5/1996 dated 6.3.1996, whereby the learned Judge has while exercising his power in revision dismissed the petition of the petitioner against the order dated 16.9.1995 of the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint as being hit by provisions of Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. The learned Judge has held that the acts complained of were done by the officers under the colour of duty or authority or in excess of any such authority and, thereforee, the bar under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, to instituting a complaint within 3 months would come into play. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a bar under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act cannot operate in a case where the complaint alleges torture and beating in custody, for none of these acts are acts which are done either under the colour of duty or excess of duty, because...
Condor Power Products Pvt. Vs. Sandeep Rohtagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT121; 2004(74)DRJ391
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision is directed against the Order dated 13.5.2000 disposing of the defendant/revisionist's application under Order VII Rule 10, CPC. The defendant had prayed for the return of the Plaint, since in its opinion Courts at Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.2. It is well established that at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 or Order VII Rule 11 the averments in the Plaint should alone be looked at. Reference need only be directed to Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra 1 (2003) CLT 120 (SC)=. This p2002 10 AD (S.C.) 537rinciple may be somewhat enlarged by making it permissible to also look at the documents filed by the Plaintiff. This is for the reason that the plaintiff cannot deny the genuineness of documents filed by him. This presumption, however, would not extend to the extremity that every statement made in the document also stands admitted by the plaintiff. Let us consider the case of a Notice issued b...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »