Delhi Court December 1980 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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Vs. Nangumal Ram Kishore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT15; 1981RLR235; [1981]48STC277(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The three sales tax references before the Court relate to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. As the points are common, a single consolidated order was passed by the Financial Commissioner on three separate revisions. This judgment will, thereforee, also effectively deal with all the three references before this Court. 2. The question which has arisen for decision before us is related to whether misri and batasha which are almost purely sugar products are exempt from sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi, at the relevant time. In order to understand the question involved, it may be stated here that there are three schedules to the Act. As per the provisions of section 5 of the Act, the goods specified in the First Schedule are taxable at the rate of 10 per cent and the goods specified in the Third Schedule are taxable at the rate of two per cent. As per section 6, goods specified in the Second Schedule are totally exem...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Vs. India Neon Signs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC439(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. There are three sales tax references Nos. 33, 34 and 35 of 1973 before the Court. But they involve a common point. In each of these cases the question of law referred to us is : 'Whether having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case the neon signs sold by the respondent are covered by the term 'electrical goods' within the meaning of entry No. 18 of the First Schedule as appended to the Act.' 2. In order to understand the scope of the question, it is only necessary to state that the assessed-dealer are engaged in the manufacture and sale of neon signs and other activities which are not material. The neon sign is operated by electricity and the question which has arisen is whether the neon signs are actually electrical goods or not. No doubt, neon signs are activated by electricity and normally speaking should be considered as electrical goods. But the signs manufactured by the two assesseds before us are in the shape of letters. These signs are visible by day...
East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Administra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC179(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The following questions have been referred to us by the Lt. Governor of Delhi under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi :'(1) Whether, on the circumstances and on the facts of this case, the applicant-company is legally entitled to split up the restaurant sales into charges for services rendered and price for sale of goods and comprising of the sale price of the goods and service charges when consolidated rate is charged without making any break-up in the bills and if so, on what basis and at what rate (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant company is legally entitled to split up its turnover in respect of sale of goods and services for special reception and meetings when consolidated rate is charged If so, on what basis and at what rate (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Financial Commissioner was justified to hold that the receipts from holding spec...
Emkay Exporters (P.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT229; 1981RLR250
Charaujit Talwar, J. (1) M/S. Emkay Exporters (P.) Ltd. and its Managing Director Shri V. Bhaskaran have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality of the order passed by Shri M. L. Mehta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on February 15,1980,declining their application seeking discharge for an offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (the Act). (2) The petitioners are being prosecuted by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') offence under Section 14 of the Act on the allegation that premises bearing No. B-55, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, are being put to a non-conforming use by them as' an office of the Company whereas the building can only be used for residential purpose as per the Master Plan/Zonal Plan of Delhi. (3) The facts leading to the prosecution are that the petitioner-Company is carrying on the business of manufacture and export of garments....
S. Rau's Indian Administrative Service Study Circle Vs. Sushila Nanda ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT174; 1981RLR45
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) Main question for determination is if Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) repealed proviso (ccc) of Sub Section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short Code) introduced by way of amendment of the said Code by Section 35 of the Punjab Relief of indebtedness Act is extended to Delhi. (2) The aforesaid proviso (ccc) to sub-section (1) of Section 60 reads as under:- 'PROVIDED that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely :- (ccc) one main residential house and either buildings attached to it (with the material and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to a judgment debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him ; Provided that the protection afforded by this clause shall not extend to any property specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered'.(3) C...
P.N. Chopra and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi102a
Sachar, J.(1) Seven years' wait to get justice from DelhiAdministration by the Staff belonging to the court of justice isthe ironic background to the present writ petition.(2) This is another round of litigation which has been initiatedby the Private Secretaries and Readers to the Judges of this courtseeking justice from Delhi Administration in the matter of fixation of their pay scales. In spite of the expression to a feelingby this court that there has been improper classification and in-justice done to the Private Secretaries and the Readers and expressing a hope that the administration would consider thematter of classification of the petitioners afresh keeping in view thevarious relevant factors and considerations, the hope has beenbelied. It may be mentioned that why in spite of holding thatthere was improper classification the writ was notgranted wasbecause of the peculiar position of clasuse (b) of Article 226 asit then stood and which gave a limited scope for issuance of thewr...
Union of India Vs. Delhi Small Scale Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT334; 1981RLR339
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) Is an order passed under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act (to be called the Act) refusing to enlarge the time for the arbitrator to make the award appealable under Section 39 of the Act is the point involved in this appeal against the order of T.P.S. Ghawla, J. by which the learned Judge refused to extend time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act on an application moved by Union of India, the appellant. (2) A contract was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for the supply of soap sometime in 1966. The full price for the Supply was made in August, 196/. However, the appellant/Union of India by its letter of 3.2.1968 informed the respondent that the supplies by it were found defective on test. The said claim was not accepted by the respondent. As the agreement contained an arbitration clause the matter was referred to Mr. P. Ramchandani, Arbitrator, to adjudicate the dispute on 20.8.1969. He entered upon a reference on the same date. Proceedi...
Union of India Vs. the Triveni Engineering Works Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1980
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT255
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) The question for consideration in this appeal is how to calculate the value of assets within the meaning of Section 2(W) of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) for the purpose of determining the registrability of an undertaking under Section 26 of the Act for the applicability of Chapter Iii, Part A of the Act which aims at preventing concentration of economic power. (2) This is an appeal against the order of Prakash Narain,J. (as his lordship then was) by which he quashed the impugned notices dated November 1,1971 and December 29, 1971 and prohibited the prosecution of the respondent company for its alleged non-registration under Section 26 of the Act. (3) Chapter Iii of the Act deals with regulation of concentration of economic power, the obvious purpose being to regulate the monopolistic tendencies in the economy of the country. Part A of Section 20 of the Act applies to an undertaking if the total value of its o...
Santdas Idanmal and Company Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT561(Del)
1. The petitioner here is a partnership firm. On 18th December, 1959 one of its partner Mr. Sant Dass Idanmal died and the firm was reconstituted by introducing a new partner Shri Paras Ram J. Mirchandani on 1-4-1960. Since 1954 the firm was importing printing paper and had a quota certificate in its name for the value of Rs. 1,65,160/- for such import. It was getting the licenses for import from time to time on the basis of that quota certificate. After reconstitution, the firm applied for the transfer of quota rights in the name of new firm on September 27, 1960. The petitioner contends that they made requisition of that firm together with all the documents to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. Pending decision on the transfer of Quota Rights, the petitioner made an application for import licenses for the relevant licencing period i.e. April-September, 1960, October 1960/March, 1961 and April 1961 - September, 1961. It appears that the office of the Chief Control...
Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT300
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This judgment shall dispose of two petitions, namely, Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 523 of 1980 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 527 of 1980. (2) The petitioner in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 523 of 1980, i.e. Pritam Singh, is the proprietor of M/s Navyug Press, Pleasure Garden Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and the petitioner in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 527 of 1980, i.e. Amar Bharati, is a practitioner in Homoeupathic medicines and also writes books in Punjabi, besides doing translation of books from other languages to Punjabi on behalf of the National Book Trust and Sahitya Academy. One Sardar Kapur Singh, an ex-ICS officer approached the petitioner Pritam Singh for the printing of second enlarged edition of his book titled 'Sachi Saki' in Gurumukhi script. It is alleged that in this connection he gave some photographs to be published in the said edition. The petitioner published another book 'Sat Guru Tis Ka Naue' in which its author Amar Bharti quoted a Passage from an arti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »