Delhi Court September 1981 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.
Hotchand Jawaharmall Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2197(Del)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order in revision passed by Government of India on July 5, 1972 confirming the order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board upheld the order of the Collector of Customs with regard to the liability of the goods for confiscation but the Board modified the order of the Collector in regard to personal penalty. The Board ordered that the petitioners was liable to pay Rs. 1,000 as penalty. The impugned order is challenged mainly on two grounds :- 1. That there was no mis-statement in regard to the value as petitioner has no knowledge of the value of the goods as determined by the Collector. 2. That the value of the goods was determined by the Collector in contravention of Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The submission is that the department was wrong in fixing the wholesale price on the basis of sale contracts and the consequent invoices of the foreign manufactures. 2. The petitioner imported art-silk fabrics under impo...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT80b; [1982]49STC150(Delhi)
Goswamy, J. 1. The main question that arises in this Letters Patent appeal is whether by virtue of sections 4(1) and 5(1) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act of 1972, the petitioner's trade, assets and properties can be said to be that of the Central Government and as such are exempt from the levy of sales tax under article 285 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner-company is engaged in the business of general insurance and the functions of the petitioner-company are to insure the vehicles and properties and other gods thereby providing insurance to the customers and indemnify them against loss, damage or theft of the insured property in terms of the contract of insurance. After making the payment of the compensation amount to the claimants, in certain cases, the petitioner-company becomes the owner and entitled to possess the waste or unusable property damaged by the risk insured against. The properties or goods, which are thus damaged or rendered unsalab...
G.C. Sharma Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi227; 21(1982)DLT22
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This appeal, under section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the application of the appellant under section 8 of the Act for supplying the vacancy was dismissed. A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of the appeal, on the ground that the impugned order does not fall under any of the clauses of section 39(1) of the Act and as such is not appealable. (2) The relevant facts for the decision of the preliminary objection are that by resolution No. 202 dated 5th December, 1952 of the Executive Council of University of Delhi, the petitioner was appointed as the Architect on the terms laid down by the Royal Institute of British Architect and waa to be paid 6% of the total value of each work. Later on the said resolution was superseded by resolution No. 255 dated 30-1-1959 whereby the Executive Council of the University of Delhi reduced ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Distillers Trading Corp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Del)56; [1982]137ITR894(Delhi)
RANGANATHAN J. - The following question of law common to both the references has been referred to this court for decision by the income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to reduce the depreciation from 10% to 7% for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 ?'The reference arises out of the income-tax assessments of M/s. Distillers Trading Corporation, a limited company for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The company carries on no manufacturing operations; its business was in the purchase of ethyl alcohol from various suppliers in the State of U.P. (who extract it from molasses), storage of the same for some time and export of the same out of India. While submitting the returns of income for these two assessment years, the assessed had calculate depreciation on i...
Bhisham Chandra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD757(Delhi)
1. The only point for determination in this appeal, filed by the assessee, is whether he had entered into a contract for the purchase of the X-ray machine before 1-12-1973 and, consequently, whether he was entitled to development rebate on that machine.2. Under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) No. SO 2167 dated 28-5-1971 issued under Sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), development rebate will not be allowed in respect of ships acquired or machinery or plant installed after 31-5-1974. Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, however, provided that if the assessee furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the ITO that before 1-12-1973, he had purchased such machinery or plant or had entered into a contract for the purchase of such machinery or plant with the manufacturer or owner of, or a dealer in such machinery or plant, the above prohibition against the allowance of development ...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Shanti Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi159; 20(1981)DLT415
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 6th November, 1980 of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Glass) Delhi whereby he dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 9 rule 7 of the Code on the ground that the application was barred by time. The brief facts are as follows:- (2) The plaintiff-respondent No. I filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner D.D.A. The summons of the suit was served on the petitioner for 30th April, 1979 but no body was present and thereforee it was proceeded ex parts. The trial court adjourned the suit to 16th August, 1979 for recording ex parte evidence. The petitioner made an application under Order 9 rule 7 of the Code on 16th August, 1979 before the trial court alleging that Mr. K.P. Sharma, Advocate was the counsel for the Delhi Development Authority who was engaged in the case and as he was busy in his personal matter, he could not attend the case at the time wh...
Santosh Food Products and ors. Vs. Leela Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT298; 1982(3)DRJ88; 1981RLR614
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: The appellant had taken on rent the premises H-1. Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, at a rent of Rs. 4.500.00 per month on 5th October, 1978. The above lease was obtained under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.(2) On 4th October, 1980 the tenant filed an application for fixation of standard rent. During the pendency of the said application on 17th March, 1981 the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. In the said application it is averred that the tenant had defaulted in paying the rent since November, 1979. According to the landlord except for a sum of Rs. 6000.00 the tenant has not paid rent from 4th November, 1979. (3) On 3rd July, 1981 the Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called 't 'he Act') directing the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent from 5th November, 1979 till date ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›