Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-18-1998
Reported in : 1999IAD(Delhi)213; 77(1999)DLT37; ILR1998Delhi908
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed alleging that the medical education and grant of degrees etc. in the field of medicine, are not controlled and regulated by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, Homoeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 and Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 of late, newspapers have been flooded with advertisements of the institutions which are functioning in violation of the provisions of said Acts and causing incalculable damage to public health. The New Delhi Medical Institute of Electropathy, functioning at H-38, Street No. 9, New Mahabir Nagar, New Delhi is one of such institutions. It claims to be affiliated to NaturoElectro Homoeo Medicines of India (for short 'N.E.H.M.') and authorised to function by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Dr. N.K. Awasthy projected as the Electopathy Smarat of India, is the founder of this institution. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-01-1998
Reported in : 73(1998)DLT732
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiffs claiming to be engaged in the sale of suit cases all over the globe have instituted the suit against the defendants stating that the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's copyright in drawings; the defendants are passing off their goods and they are imitating the trade dress in making the suit cases to sell their products. The defendants resist the case of the plaintiffs on various grounds. In view of the fact that the parties relied heavily on their respective pleadings to project their respective contentions and the arguments covered a very wide canvass, it has become necessary for me to refer to the pleadings in the first instance and then to deal with the rival contentions put forth at the time of the arguments and the precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.2. The case of the plaintiffs could be recounted in the following terms. The first plaintiff Samsonite Corporation is a Company operating under the State of Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-1998
Reported in : 1998VIAD(Delhi)623; (1999)156CTR(Del)252; 76(1998)DLT193; [1999]237ITR65(Delhi); (1999)122PLR2
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condensation of delay in filing a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is the subject-matter of the present order.2. The facts in brief.3. Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the subject-matter of controversy, inter alia, was disallowance of Rs. 2,15,453 claimed by the assessed under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of payment of sales tax made by the assessed within the time prescribed by the H. P. Sales Tax Act, The appeal having been decided adversely to the petitioner-assessee, the assessed filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking reference to the High Court of the question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. The application was rejected on May 30, 1995, by the Tribunal forming an opinion that the answer to the question was covered by a decision of the Delhi High Court, which is the jurisdictional High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-09-1998
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)499; 74(1998)DLT133; 1998(46)DRJ291; (1998)120PLR36
D.K. Jain, J.1. This order will dispose of is No.297, 2628 and 2629/96, all filed by the plaintiff. is No.297/96 is under Order XXII Rule 4, CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant no.3; is No.2628/96 is under Order XXII Rule 9(2), CPC for setting aside abatement of suit, if any, and is No.2629/96 filed simultaneously with the latter application is under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condensation of delay in filing the former two applications.2. The applications emerge under the following circumstances:-Having failed to realise the two amounts of Rs.2,02,429.15 and Rs.2,03,417.40, disbursed by the plaintiff bank to defendant no.1 against two documents for US$ 25,000 each, negotiated by the plaintiff under letters of credit presented on 8 February 1979 and 13 February 1979 by defendant no.1, a duly constituted firm, on account of stoppage of payment by the buyer for failure on the part of the defendants to supply the contracted goods as per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-04-1998
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC591
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi.Following are the particulars of the appellants :______________________________________________________________Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to asE/ 209/ 96- A M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITCE/210/96-A J.N. Sapru -E/211/96-A J. Narayan -E/288/96-A M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATCE/289/96-A M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette HDCF Factory Ltd.E/290/96-A M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Co. LTCE/291/96-A M/s. Reliable Cigarettes RCTI and Tobacco IndustriesE/292/96-A M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTCE/293/96 M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. CTCE/294/96-A R. Bhoothalingam 2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1987 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-_____________________________________________________________Concern Duty proposed Duty confirmed Penalty Penalty (in rupees) (in rupees) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-25-1998
Reported in : (1999)(106)ELT234TriDel
1. Appellants herein imported CT Max Whole Scanner System. Officers assessed the goods to duty under Tariff Heading 9018.19 after extending the benefit of Notification 64/88-Cus. on the strength of a certificate issued by Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The goods were cleared on 5-12-1989 after payment of duty, since the notification did not give complete exemption. Later on, two show cause notices were issued after a visit to the appellant's premises where the machine having been seized and the other show cause notice dated 26-8-1994 is for demanding duty on the aforesaid machine inasmuch as the appellants were not found to comply with the conditions a, b and c of para 2 of table to Notification 64/88-Cus. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to para 8(b) of the show cause notice therein such an allegation has been made and has been referred to in the impugned order :- "8.B Paragraph 2 of the said table to the notification covers such hospitals which have been cert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-25-1998
Reported in : (1999)(106)ELT250TriDel
1. These appeals are filed against the common Order-in-Original dated 8-7-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Gujarat Cancer Society made import of a machine named Extra Corpoal Shockwave lithotripsy equipment known as "Lithostar" and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 279/83-Cus., dated 19-3-1983. The Gujarat Cancer Society also made import of another machine Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imagine MRI system and availed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. These machines were found installed in the premises of M/s. Shah Dignostic Institution, which was run by one Dr. Viral C. Shah. These machines were imported and the bill of entry was filed in the name of Gujarat Cancer Society and Can Bank Financial Service Ltd. in respect of the first machine and in respect of the second machine, the bill of entry was filed in the name M/s. Gujarat Cancer Society and the Leasing Company Industrial Investment Corporation of India Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-15-1998
Reported in : 1998VIAD(Delhi)765; 75(1998)DLT903; 1998(47)DRJ214; 1998RLR640
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated April 22, 1992 passed by Shri S.N.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.2. The petitioner sought an eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath room, one toilet and one verandah in property bearing No. B-54, C.C.Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs.175/- since 1973. The petitioner is owner of the premises in dispute let out for residential purposes and requires the same for use as a residence for himself and his family members dependent upon him and he has no other suitable residential accommodation and has since retired as Principal from Delhi Administration in October, 1988. It was further stated that petitioner is a qualified Homoeopath and after retirement has started giving ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-22-1998
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)374; 74(1998)DLT681; 1998(46)DRJ600; (1998)120PLR17
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises and also for recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/- as damages/mesne profits and for pendentelite and future damages/mesne profits. 2. In order to decide the present suit and to appreciate the issues raised herein, it is necessary to briefly state the case pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint. 3. The plaintiff is a charitable hospital. The defendant is engaged in business of sale and supply of medicines and drugs. On 17.8.1977 the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the defendant whereby the defendant was allowed by leave and license to run the medical store in the suit premises on license fee of Rs.1,500/- per month. The said oral agreement was later on reduced to writing under an agreement dated 18.7.1978. As per the terms of the said agreement the period of license was limited for 3 years expiring on 16.8.1980 and the defendant was to pay a license fee of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-20-1998
Reported in : [1998]234ITR335(Delhi)
Head Note:INCOME TAXCompany--APPLICABILITY OF S. 115JA--Effect of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in the case of foreign company Ratio & Held :Article 7 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherland only limits quantum of taxable income of applicant-company and applicant remains liable to pay tax on its business profits attributable to its permanent establishment in India and, thereforee, applicant company would not go outside the purview of section 115JA by virtue of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Application :Also to current assessment year. A.Y. :1997-98 Dt.Ruling. :20-7-1998Income Tax Act 1961 s.115JA Company--APPLICABILITY OF S. 115JA--Foreign company--Non-applicability of some of provisions of s. 115JA Ratio :Non-applicability of some of the provisions of section 115JA in toto to a foreign company cannot be a ground to exempt foreign company altogether from purview of section 115JA. Held :In the case of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Ross minste...
Tag this Judgment!