Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-20-1997
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)529; AIR1998Delhi332; [1999]97CompCas758(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT543; 1997(43)DRJ448
Mohd. Shamim J. 1. This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Delhi Lottery (hereinafter referred as the petitioner in order to facilitate the reference) against the judgment and order dated March 9, 1995, whereby defendant-bank/respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 3 for the sake of convenience) was restrained from allowing the encashment of the bank guarantees (BG No. 1 of 1994, dated January 18, 1994, and BG No. 2 of 1994, dated February 4, 1994). It was further ordered that the securities furnished against the said bank guarantees be released. 2. The brief facts which led to the presentation of the present petitions are as under : that the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2 for the sake of brevity) filed a suit (No. 34 of 1995) for perpetual injunction on February 8, 1995, with the allegations that respondent No. 2 is the sales manager of Hanumant Sales Corporation, Inderpuri, New Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-01-1997
Reported in : 1997IVAD(Delhi)163; 1997(2)ARBLR133(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT548
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd January, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge in Civil Suit 563/93 whereby he allowed the application filed by the respondent u/Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Cpc restraining the appellant from selling, disposing of or alienating or releasing the Hindi feature film 'DO YAAR'. (2) Facts leading to this appeal and relevant for its disposal are as under. By an agreement dated 29.4.1982, entered into between the appellant and respondent No. I, the respondent No. 1 acquired sole and exclusive rights, of distribution of the Hindi feature film 'DO YAAR' for a period of 5 years for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000.00 . Pursuant to the agreement dated 29.4.82, the respondent No. 1 paid Rs. l,90,000.00 to the appellant and balance of Rs. 60,000.00 was withheld by the appellant to meet the claim of Globe Films when the said picture was released it was found that prints supplied by the appellant were not in good condition. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-17-1997
Reported in : (1997)58TTJ(Del)395
ORDERJ. P. BENGRA, J.M. :There is an appeal by the assessed and the cross appeal by the Department against a single order of the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi pertaining to asst. yr. 1989-90. Since both these matters arise out of the single order, thereforee, for the sake of convenience these appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The grievance of the assessed relates to estimation of business income and thereby sustaining an addition of Rs. 30,000 towards income of assessed on account of indoor and miscellaneous receipts and secondly addition of Rs. 35,000 on account of suppression of professional receipts whereas the Department is aggrieved whether the CIT(A) has restricted the addition on account of indoor and miscellaneous income from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 30,000 and similarly for suppression of professional receipts, he has given relief of Rs. 74,148 instead of confirming the addition made by the AO ?3. The facts of the case are that the assessed is an individual and deriving...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-17-1997
1. There is an appeal by the assessee and the cross appeal by the Department against a single order of the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi pertaining to asst. yr. 1989-90. Since both these matters arise out of the single order, therefore, for the sake of convenience these appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The grievance of the assessee relates to estimation of business income and thereby sustaining an addition of Rs. 30,000 towards income of assessee on account of indoor and miscellaneous receipts and secondly addition of Rs. 35,000 on account of suppression of professional receipts whereas the Department is aggrieved whether the CIT(A) has restricted the addition on account of indoor and miscellaneous income from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 30,000 and similarly for suppression of professional receipts, he has given relief of Rs. 74,148 instead of confirming the addition made by the AO 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and deriving income from medical pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-24-1997
Reported in : (1997)(92)ELT433TriDel
1. The Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad passed order dated 21-3-1996 confiscating the consignment of Poppy Seeds weighing 151.060 tons under Clauses (d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) on account of violation of Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Clause 3 of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 and Section 11 of the Act and on account of misdeclaration of the value of the goods, but allowing redemption on payment of fine Rs. 50 lakhs and on payment of customs duty at the appropriate rate assessed on value reckoned at Rs. 13 per kg. CIF, as against the declared rate of about Rs. 10 (US $ 0.30) per kg. CIF. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Sanjay Kapoor, partner of M/s. Sree Viswanath and Sons, Delhi (appellant in C/199/96-A ) and of Rs. 1000/- on Sri Ram Kirpal, proprietor of M/s. Sunder Brej Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Meerut (appellant in C/97/96-A (for short, SAP) under Section 112(a) of the Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-1997
Reported in : 1997VIAD(Delhi)912; 73(1998)DLT75; 1998(44)DRJ120; 1998(102)ELT524(Del); [1998]232ITR395(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This common order shall govern the disposal of 4 civil writ petitions, namely Cwp 2796/97, Ms.Deeksha Suri v. It at, Cwp 2797/97 Ms.Divya Suri v. It at, Cwp 2798/97 Sh Lalit Suri v. It at and Cwp 2299/97 Smt Jyotsna Suri v. IT AT. The facts of the four cases and the questions arising for decision therein are common, rather the same, except for a minor deviation on facts in the case of Smt.Jyotsna Suri which would be taken note of at its appropriate place.(2) The facts in brief, which for the sake of convenience are being stated in the succeeding paragraphs from the record of Cwp 2796/97 Ms.Deeksha Suri v. IT AT.(3) All the four petitioners are individuals, the status as contemplated by the provisions of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter `The Act', for short). They filed their returns of income as under :- NAME Date of filing Income declared Shri Lalit Suri 21/8/1992 Rs.89,490.00 including salary from Bharat Hotels Ltd.(Rs.1,13,400.00 ) Mrs.Jyotsna Suri 28/8/199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-1997
Reported in : (1998)146CTR(Del)576
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This common order shall govern the disposal of 4 civil writ petitions, namely CWP 2796/97, Ms. Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT, CWP 2797/97, Ms. Divya Suri vs. ITAT, CWP 2798/97, Sh. Lalit Suri vs. ITAT and CWP 2299/97, Smt. Jyotsna Suri vs. ITAT. The facts of the four cases and the questions arising for decision therein are common, rather the same, except for a minor deviation on facts in the case of Smt. Jyotsna Suri which would be taken note of at its appropriate place. 2. The facts in brief, which for the sake of convenience are being stated in the succeeding paragraphs from the record of CWP 2796/97 Ms. Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT. 3. All the four petitioners are individuals, the status as contemplated by the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'The Act', for short). They filed their returns of income as under : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Name Date of filing Income declared------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-01-1997
Reported in : 67(1997)DLT557; 1997(42)DRJ106
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. This is appeal from the order dated 30-3-1991 passed by the ADJ, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 754/1990 under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC restraining the appellant/plaintiff from manufacturing selling offering for sale the face cream and cosmetics under the trade mark name of 'clear fresh' or 'clear face' of any other deceptively similar trade mark. 2. The facts are as follows the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for rendition of account and for permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them from manufacturing selling offering for sale, directly or indirectly dealing in cosmetics or any other cognate or allied goods under the trade mark 'Real' or any other deceptively similar trade mark or from doing any other thing as is likely to lead to passing off its goods and business as the goods and business of the plaintiff. Along with the plaint the appellant also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC. On 22-5-1990, learned trial Judge granted ad i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-03-1997
Reported in : (1997)59TTJ(Del)227
ORDERB. M. KOTHARI, A.M. :This appeal by the assessed is directed against the assessment order passed by the Dy. CIT Special Range-26, New Delhi under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, for the block period 1986-87 to 1995-96 plus the current period 1st April, 1995, to 15th September, 1995, up to the date of search.2. The assessed has raised the following grounds in this appeal :'1. That the authorities below were not justified to pass the order under s. 158BC of the IT Act without compliance of provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act and the assessment framed is illegal and deserves to be quashed.That the learned CIT has granted the approval under s. 158BC of the IT Act in a mechanical manner and without application of his mind and ignoring the detailed submission and Explanationn furnished before him during the course of personal hearing granted by him to the appellant.2. That the authorities below were not justified to make an addition of Rs. 51,91,000 in the block assessment a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-03-1997
Reported in : (1997)61ITD528(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order passed by the Dy. CIT Special Range-26, New Delhi under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, for the block period 1986-87 to 1995-96 plus the current period 1st April, 1995, to 15th September, 1995, upto the date of search. "1. That the authorities below were not justified to pass the order under s. 158BC of the IT Act without compliance of provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act and the assessment framed is illegal and deserves to be quashed. That the learned CIT has granted the approval under s. 158BC of the IT Act in a mechanical manner and without application of his mind and ignoring the detailed submission and explanation furnished before him during the course of personal hearing granted by him to the appellant. 2. That the authorities below were not justified to make an addition of Rs. 51,91,000 in the block assessment as alleged undisclosed income without any basis and without even referring to the secti...
Tag this Judgment!