Delhi Court October 1982 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.
Motia Rani Bhatia Vs. the Additional Director of Enforcement and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas643(Delhi); 23(1983)DLT74; 1983(4)DRJ271; 1985(6)ECC226
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Those are four appeals from the order of Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board dated 16th May, 1980. This Judgment will govern them all. (2) These are the facts.On 10-2-1973 the Customs Authorities of Palam Airport seized certain documents from the custody of Shri L. D. Bhatia, appellant in Crl. A. 183/80, who had arrived on a flight from Kabul. These documents were 27 in number. They were forwarded by the customs authorities. to the enforcement directorate on 9-1-1974. Among the seized documeats there was one paper, page 25, which appeared to be a balance sheet of a business concern called Reliable Traders of Kabul. The material entries at page 25 were as follows : 'NAME Of Thb Account Amount In Afghanis Cr. Leelawati 18,50,000.00 Motia Rani 16,00,000.00 Dr. L. D. Bhatia 62,800.00 Ram Lal Bhatia 2,75,510.00' (3) These four persons are residents of India and carry on business under the name of Bhatia Brothers at Delhi. (4) Now at the airport Bhatia wa...
Makhdum Ali Vs. Mst. Nargis Bano and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ111; 1983(1)Crimes933; 1(1983)DLT100; 1983(4)DRJ39
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the husband, Makdoom Ali, seeking to set aside the order dated 30th September, 1981 made by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the order dated 6-5-1981 of the Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. The petitioner, Makdoom Ali was the husband. Nargis Bano, respondent No. 1 was his wife. Now they are divorced. The husband has remarried. The wife has not. For the purposes of this case wife 'includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not married.' (Section 125 Cri.P.C. Explanationn C). Asim Ali, respondent No. 2, is a child of the marriage. He is a boy nearly of four years of age. 3. The wife made a petition to the Metropolitan Magistrate on 14th December, 1978 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. alleging that the husband had turned her out of the house on 10-9-1978 and that he was refusing and neglecting to maintain her and the child. 4. The husband appeared before the Met...
Mukhdum Ali Vs. Nargis Bano and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT100
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the husband, Makdoom Ali, seeking to set aside the order dated 30th September, 1981 made by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the order dated 6.5.1981 of the Metropolitan Magistrate.(2) The petitioner, Makdoom Ali was the husband. Nargis Bano, respondent No. I was his wife. Now they are divorced. The husband has remarried. The wife has not. For the purposes of this case wife 'includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not married. '(Section 125 Gr. P.C. Explanationn C). Asim Ali, respondent No. 2, is a child of the marriage. He is a boy nearly of four years of age.(3) The wife made a petition to the Metropolitan Magistrate on 14th December, 1978 under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code . alleging that the husband had turned her out of the house on 10.9.1978 and that he was refusing and neglecting to maintain her and the child.(4) The h...
Ghanshyam and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi807
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a test case. Ranjinder Nagar House owners' Welfare Association and its 54 members have brought this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Union of India challenging the validity of notice dated 7th July, 1970/24th July, 1970 issued by the Land and Development Officer, Respondent No. 3, to one of its members Ghanshyam Dass, petitioner No. 1, to show cause why his premises be not re-entered by the President of India. As similiar notices have been issued to other members of the Association they have made it a 'test case'.(2) These are the facts. The displaced persons who were uprooted from their home land in West Pakistan in the wake of partition of the country in 1947 had to be resettled. One of the legislative measures taken in this behalf was the passing of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (the .Act). This came into force on 9-10-1954. The Government set up displaced persons colonies. One su...
Dalbir Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes210; 23(1983)DLT88; 1983(4)DRJ43; 1982RLR809
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 7.11.1981.(2) These are the facts. On 22.1.1981 a sub inspector of police with 2 assistant sub-inspectors and a head constable went to investigate a case under section 307, 1.P.O. They were looking for Rakesh and Umesh, two sons of Dalbir Singh, in his house in Onkar Nagar. They knocked at the door of his house. It was 1.15 a. m. The accused Dalbir Singh came out of the house. The sub inspector explained to him the reasons of his presence. On this the accused became angry and caught hold of the collar of the sub inspector and shook him saying; 'How have you dared to come to my house at this hour ?' When the sub inspector tried to free himself his son also came there and both of them began to beat the sub inspector. His uniform was also torn. With these allegations a first information report Was lodged. The investig...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Surinder Singh Bindra
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD463(Delhi)
1 This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against order, dated 14-7-1981, of the AAC.2. 1974-75 is the assessment year concerned. 31-3-1974 is the corresponding valuation date. The assessee is an individual. The assessment was completed by the WTO as per order dated 13-3-1979 determining net wealth at Rs. 1,24,000. The said net wealth included the value of the assessee's one-third share in House No. 2/12, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The assessee had declared the value of said share at Rs. 67,466 on the strength of registered valuer's report. The WTO raised the estimate of value of said one-third share to Rs. 1 lakh.|The WTO worked out the said figure by adopting land and building method of valuation instead of yield capitalisation method, as adopted by the registered valuer.3. The assessee challenged the said finding of the WTO by way of appeal before the AAC. The AAC directed the WTO to re-estimate the value of the said asset in the light of provisions of Rule IBB of the Wealt...
Claridges Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC83(Delhi)
1. The only opposition raised by the respondent to the rule issued is that the petitioner has collected the sales tax from its customers and thereforee cannot retain it. It is not disputed that the sales tax deposited, now in dispute is not the property of the respondent. It was undoubtedly the property of the petitioner. The respondents in any case have no right to retain something which is not theirs. It is admitted by the respondents in their affidavit in paragraph 35 of the counter-affidavit that as per the assessment orders the petitioner has been held entitled to refund of Rs. 80,342, Rs. 93,513 and Rs. 1,65,710 respectively for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. It is also admitted that applications in the appropriate forms had been filed in time. As noticed earlier, the only plea is that the discretion of the assessing authority has been exercised against the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has not refunded the said sales tax amount to its customer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›