Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-06-1983
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas28(Delhi); 25(1984)DLT120; ILR1984Delhi688
D.R. Khanna, J. 1. Technically speaking, this petition moved under section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, by one Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., has become infructuous inasmuch as the relief sought for cannot any longer be granted. That relief claimed was that the Company Law Board should be restrained from proceeding with appeals Nos. 1 to 12 of 1982 filed before it under section 111 of the Companies Act with regard to the transfer of certain shares. The Company Law Board has already disposed of those appeals and allowed them on July 13, 1983. Thereby the appellants before the Board, who where the transferees of certain shares, were made entitled to be registered as shareholders on the basic of those transfers. The opposition by the company to there transfer was negatived. The company then filed a writ petition against that decision of the Company Law Board, assailing the same on various grounds, but without success. The write was dismissed on November 22, 1983. 2. There is thus no furt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-24-1983
Reported in : (1984)(15)ELT260TriDel
1. This appeal filed by M/s. Rishi Enterprises is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 3rd July, 1982 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay whereby he disposed of the appeal filed by the appellants, against Adjudication order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay passed on 11-7-1979.2. Proceedings emanated from a notice to show cause having been issued on 2-1-1978 by Superintendent of Central Excise, Range IV, Bombay indicating that the party had been manufacturing 'nib slitting wheels' which attracted excise duty under T.I. 51(2) of the Central Excise Tariff (hereinafter referred to as the (CET), and that they cleared the same/consumed captively during the period October 1972 to April 1977, without obtaining Central Excise Licence as required under section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with rule 174 of the Rules framed thereunder, (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules respectively). Infringement of other provisions of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-20-1983
Reported in : (1983)6ITD575(Delhi)
1. Of the above five appeals, there is one asssesee's appeal relating to the assessment year 1976-77 whereas there are two cross-appeals by the department and the assessee relating to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The main points involved in these appeals are common and they relate to the assessee's claim for being treated as an industrial company as defined in Section 2(9)(c) of the Finance Act, 1976 (similar in other years Finance Acts) and the claim of the assessee for relief under Section 80J of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). While in the assessment year 1976-77 both the points were decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessee, in later assessment years, namely, 1977-78 and 1978-79, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the assessee was not an industrial company for the purposes of concession in the rate of tax under the Finance Act.However, the assessee's claim for being treated as an industrial undertaking under Sections 80J and 80HH of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-1983
Reported in : (1984)(16)ELT445TriDel
1. This is an application on behalf of the Appellant, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, praying for stay of "the enforcibility of the Appellate Collector's order" till the appeal is decided by the Tribunal. (Statement at the top of the application). (c) except for a statement that the Appellate Collector's order, unless stayed, "will result in substantial temporary loss of legitimate revenue to the Central Government," there was neither any quantification of the exact amount of duty or penalty that would have become payable but for the Appellate Collector's order ; nor any reasons given as to why it is anticipated that the revenue, if found due to the Appellant in the instant Appeal, will become irrecoverable from the Respoadent; 3. It would, however, appear from the cross-objection filed for the Respondent-although no cross-objections could be entertained, since it was not as if the Respondent Appeal was allowed in part only so that there could be cross-objections for that par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Aug-30-1983
Reported in : (1983)(14)ELT1806TriDel
1. Appellants have filed this appeal to the Tribunal against the order-in-appeal No. 21-CE/JPR/81 dated 15-2-82 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. By the said order appellants appeal against order in original No. V(68)35/CE(iii)/80/1238 dated 4-3-81 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur confirming the demand of Rs. 39,700.18 from the appellants was dismissed as barred by limitation.2. The Appellate Collector held that order-in-original was received by the appellants on 6-2-1981 and the appeal filed by them on 7-5-1981.There was thus delay of one day in filing the appeal which could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the same being not applicable to proceeding under the Central Excise Act.3. At the hearing of the appeal Shri K.G. Sooji, Consultant for the appellants submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants was in fact not time-barred. The proforma of the order-in-original received by the appellants had columns ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-24-1983
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT383
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.1982 whereby the eviction petition of the respondent owner was allowed and the eviction order was passed. The respondent filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. In paragraph 18 (a) of the petition, it was alleged : 'That the tendency premises are bona fide required by the petitioner for herself and for the members of her family, dependent upon her for accommodation and otherwise also. The petitioner has no other suitable residential accommodation for herself and the members of her family. The petitioner is the owner/landlord of the disputed tenancy premises. The tenancy premises had been let out to the respondent for residential purpose'. (2) That the petitioner's family comprised of herself, her husband, one married daughter, one unmarried daughter, one unmarried son and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-27-1983
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT355
M.L. Jain, J. (1) On 6-7-1962 an agreement of lease was reached between the respondent Smt. Girnari Devi and Gopal Dass, Dev Kumar and Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal (herein the Aggarwals) in respect of the disputed premises No. 20/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the material conditions of this agreement was that the period of lease shall be ten years with effect from 15-7-1962. Another important term was that the Aggarwal were authorised to assign the demised premises for the use of any of the companies in which they or any of them is a director or for the use of any of the firms in which they or any of them is a partner. Out of them, Gopaldas and Dev Kumar arc since December 1959 two of the directors of M/s. Devi Dayal Metal Industries (Pvt) Ltd. (herein the appellants). The correspondence that ensued between the parties with regard to the payment of rent from 21-5-1963 onwards shows that rent was payable and was paid by the appellants. Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal has signed all these letters as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-11-1983
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT205
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the landlady is directed against the judgment and order dated July 6, 1979 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby her first appeal was dismissed only on the ground that no proper notice terminating the contractual tenancy of the tenant State of Uttar Pradesh, has been served on the tenant. (2) The appellant had filed an eviction petition originally against the Export Trade Development Officer, Government U.P. Handicrafts and Government U.P. So there were two respondents in the original eviction petition. The ground taken for eviction was under clause (a) to proviso (1) to Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act i.e. non-payment of rent. Subsequently the eviction petition was amended and State of U.P. was imp leaded as a party through its Secretary. (3) The written statement filed on behalf of the respondents assigned by one Joint Industrial Director and the main plea was that no valid notice terminating the contractual tenancy was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-20-1983
Reported in : (1983)LC1344DTri(Delhi)
1. In this case, the respondent, Dr. Tanna, imported a consign ment of bone cement (Simplex RO). The goods were assessed @ 120% +20% AD+-40 % CVD as a Polymer under heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Dr. Tanna did not agree to the assessment and filed a refund claim. The said claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the importer had not specified any heading under which refund was claimed. Dr. Tanna, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector allowed the appeal and passed order for reassessment of the goods as medical appliances under heading 90.19 CTA which carried the lower rate of duty of 40%+ 5% AD.The Central Government felt that the order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector was not maintainable in law and accordingly issued the subject Show Cause Notice under the then Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing to re-assess the goods under heading 30.04/05 CTA. When no reply to the Show...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : May-10-1983
Reported in : (1983)LC1419DTri(Delhi)
1. In this Revision application to the Government of India, transferred to the Tribunal and heard by us as an appeal pursuant to Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, the facts were : (a) A consignment of 10 drums wrapped in jute cloth was intercepted on 16.12.76 outside the delivery godown of M/s. Amritsar-Bombay Carriers (Regd.), Nabi Karim, Delhi, in the presence of Appellant No. 2 and independent witnesses. On examination it was revealed that (i) they contained citric acid monohydrate granular, made in Belgium; (iii) they were booked by M/s. Pancham Trading Co., Bombay to self; and (iv) they were accompanied with a Bill drawn upon Union Chemical Agency, Katra Ishwar Bhavan, Khari Baoli, Delhi; (b) The Appellant No. 2, partner of Appellant No. 1 claimed ownership, for himself and Appellant No. 1, of the drums but failed to produce any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to show lawful possession of the same or acquisition of the same; (c) The said goods were, therefore, seized und...
Tag this Judgment!