Delhi Court May 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.
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT19; 1982(10)ELT467(Del)
ORDERPrakash Narain, C.J.1. The Petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium conductors used for transmission of high voltage of electric current. It has its factory, amongst other places, at Faridabad in the State of Haryana. 2. In the process of manufacture of aluminium conductors, the petitioner obtains at an intermediary stage, what is described as aluminium rods, which are further processed to manufacture aluminium conductors and cables. The said intermediary products, according to the petitioners, is obtained by a specialised process known as the 'Properzi Process'. The resultant product, according to the Petitioner, is aluminium rods, known both technically as well as commercially as properzi rods. The basic raw material required for the manufacture of this product is E.C. Grade Aluminium ingots on which admittedly, excise duty is paid. The said intermediary product has been regarded by the excise authorities as attracting duty under Entry No. 27(a)(ii...
Sales Tax Officer, Central Circle, New Delhi Vs. Byford Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas204(Delhi); ILR1982Delhi181; [1984]145ITR537(Delhi); [1983]53STC357(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. On an application, under s. 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act), by the company, the court stayed proceedings against the company before the STO. The STO contests the validity of this order of the company judge. The question is whether the judge can restrain proceedings against the company before the STO. 2. These are the facts. The respondent Byford Limited (the company), is a dealer in Fiat cars. It went into rough weather. It was in troubled waters. It became heavily indebted to various creditors on account of its inability to pay its debts. A winding-up petition was presented by the Bank of Madura in 1978. This petition is still pending. The order of winding-up has not been made so far. 3. During the pendency of the winding-up petition, the company made an application under s. 391 of the Act in 180 suggesting a scheme of arrangement for payment of debts to its creditors. On January 27, 1981, another application was made under s. 391(6) and s. 443 ...
Satar Masiah Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2286; 22(1982)DLT134; 1982RLR519
ORDER1. The petitioner had been convicted of offences under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act and S. 9 of the Opium Act and had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 100/- on first count and rigorous imprisonment for three months on the second. However both the sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence of the appellant has been maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. 1A. This revision petition was admitted only on the question of sentence and notice to the state (C.B.I. in the instant case) was issued. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner precisely is that the petitioner is a young man with no prior shady antecedents and he is not a previous convict, rather he is carrying on his business of auto repair workshop at Amritsar and earning his livelihood by dint of hard work. 2. To have a peep into the facts under which the petitioner was apprehended, the prosecution version...
Metal Fittings P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Del)269; ILR1982Delhi210; [1983]141ITR758(Delhi); 1982RLR508
1. The short question raised in this petition is whether the books of account seized in the course of search and seizure can be retained by the I.T. Dept. after the expiry of 180 days under s. 132(8) of the I.T. Act 1961 ('the Act'). 2. The petitioner-company, Metal Fittings Pvt. Ltd., carries on business at Okhla industrial Estate. Its registered office is at Maya Puri. A search warrant was issued on July 27, 1981. Its premises were searched at both places. The books of account were seized. The Department took them away. This happened between August 6, 1981, and August 18, 1981. We will take August 18, 1981, as the date of seizure for computation of 180 days. Now, 180 days computed from August 18, 1981, expired on February 14, 1982. On February 26, 1982, the petitioner asked the Department to return the books as the period of 180 days prescribed in s. 132(8) of the Act had expired. The respondents refused to return the books. On this the petitioner filed the present petition of March ...
Raghbir Singh and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi550; 22(1982)DLT235
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge. The petitioners applied for and were given sanction by the Municipal Corporation for construction of a building on 19.11.1966. The building broadly was to consist of Blocks A, B & C. The sanction apparently was given subject to the condition that the structure which was existing would be demolished before the commence- ment of further construction. Sanction was released on 2.12.1966. There is no dispute that block A and C were constructed. Block B however, was not constructed. (2) In June, 1969 the appellant applied for extension of time to complete the construction. Section 333 provides for a person applying for sanction by giving notice to the Commissioner. Section 336 provides for giving or refusing to sanction By Section 337(3) it is provided that if any person does not commence or execute the work within one year of the date on which the building of work ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Deokinandan and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Del)72; ILR1983Delhi897; [1982]138ITR225(Delhi)
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi, Bench 'B') has referred the following question for our decision; 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that only a sum of Rs. 29,820.00 out of the interest amount of Rs.83,867.00 was assessable in the assessment year under consideration?' (2) To appreciate the rival contentions, facts relevant for the decision may be noted. (3) The assessed firm M/s. Deoki Nandan and Sons owned a garden in Delhi known as Budha Mata Garden. That garden was acquired by the Government of India under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein called 'the Act'). A notice under section 4 of the Act was published on 4th August, 1955; declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 26th July, 1957, and its possession was taken over by the Government on 4th May, 1958. On a reference made under section 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge, Delhi, the compensation was enhanced fr...
C. Howel Vs. R.S. Howel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1982
Reported in: 1982RLR522
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) Parties are Christians. In 1970, petitioner was a teacher at Delhi while Respdt. was a gaurd in Northern Rly. at Ludhiana. They were married on 6.5.70. Relations between the two were not smooth and they cohabited for brief periods at Delhi and at Ludhiana. A daughter was born to them on 6.12.72 at Delhi. To patch up strained relations husband's father took the wife to Ludhiana, in Dec., 73. In early 1974, she got a job there in a school. Neighbours told her that Respdt. was having indecent relations with a girl of 11, 12 years. She did not believe this until she saw them both in the room indulging in indecent behavior in April, 1975. She again noticed this in Nov., 75 when she saw that Respdt. and the girl were semi naked and latter was sitting in his lap and he was kissing her. Petitioner left the house and then filed petition for divorce. She deposed the aforesaid facts and Adj granted her decree which came before High Court for confirmation. [After give above fac...
Manju Gupta Vs. M.S. Paintal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1982
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ409
V.D. Tulzaparkar, J.(1) In this appeal the question raised is whether the process issued by Shri Om Prakash, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, against the appellant (Smt. Manju Gupta) for an offence under Ss. 467/471 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code . on a complaint filed by the respondent (Lt. Col. Ms. Paintal) should be quashed or not The appellant's attempt to get it quashed under S. 482, Cr. P.C. failed before the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal. After hearing counsel on either side at great length we were satisfied that the process should be quashed and by our order dated 26.4.82 we directed accordingly and observed that the reasons would follow. We are now indicating our reasons for the order. (2) The facts in brief are these: The complainant-respondent is the owner/landlord of premises bearing Municipal No. C-221. Sarvodapa Enclave, New Delhi; he had let out the ground floor of the said premises to South Delhi Public School through Surinder Nath (accused No. 1, being ...
Indian Commerce and Industries Corporation Vs. R.C. Lai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT351
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This revision petition had been filed by the tenant against an order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 21st October, 1981 whereby the learned Rent Controller accepted the petition filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement. (2) On the filing of the revision petition I had given notice to the respondent to show cause why the revision petition be not admitted and have also sent for the records. (3) However, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Col. R. G. Lal (Retired), respondent who appeared in person, I find that there is no merit in the revision petition and the impugned order, in my view, does not call for interference. (4) The reasons in brief, for my aforesaid view are as under :- There is a finding of the learned Rent Controller that the respondent Col. R. G. Lal, is the owner of the disputed premises. The disputed premises were let out for r...
Swatantra Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT226
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) A suit for perpetual injunction was filed by the Petitioners against the respondent on 20th October, 1978. The case of the petitioners was that large portion of land measuring about two thousand square yards was owned by them but had been taken possession of illegally by the respondent. According to the petitioners the respondent was also trying to encroach upon other land measuring approximately seven thousand square yards which belonged to the petitioner. Summons having been issued no written statement was filed by the defendant and repeated adjournments were sought. Ultimately, on 3rd April, 1980 the trial court ordered the striking off the defense of the respondent under Order 8 Rule 10. It was directed that the case be posted for ex parte evidence on 18th July, 1980. Before the next date of hearing an application under Order 9 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was filed. It was stated in the application that on 3rd April, 1980 no counsel could attend o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›