Delhi Court November 1983 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.
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD107(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal arising out of an order passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the ITO on 31-3-1982. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the assessee, the following facts in brief may be mentioned.In the course of examination of accounts by the ITO for the assessment year 1971-72, he found that the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 6,79,909 on account of foreign tour expenses. The ITO, for the reasons given by him, held that only a sum of Rs. 14,180 should be allowed. The balance was disallowed by his assessment order dated 3-2-1975.The assessee in the appeal filed before the appellate authority claimed the entire amount. The AAC dealt with the matter exhaustively and held that a sum of Rs. 4,57,988 is allowable as revenue expenditure. This sum of Rs. 4,57,988 comprised of three items : In the sum of Rs. 71,413 is included the sum of Rs. 14,180 allowed by the ITO in the assessment itself. The order of the AAC having been passed on 31-3-1978, ...
Harvinder Kaur Vs. Harmander Singh Choudhry
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi66; ILR1984Delhi546; 1984RLR187
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This appeal raises'an issue of great importance to the well-being of the nation, as it goes to the very root of the marriage relationship. The husband petitioned for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife opposed. The Additional District Judge granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights to the husband. From that decreethe wife appeals to this Court.(2) 0N appeal counsel for the wife. attacked' the constitutional validity of section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. I issued 'notice to attorney-general. He appeared and argued' the case. This part of the judgment deals with the constitutional question. The rest is concerned with the facts of the case.(3) In the forefront of his arguments, counsel referred me to T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah, : AIR1983AP356 . In that case P. A. Chaudhary J. held that section 9- of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (the Act) offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and thereforee declared it null and; void. It was a s...
Munni Lal and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1983
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi469
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in these connected writ petitions is to the validity of acquisition proceedings which have been initiated by the issuance of Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 5th and 25th November, 1980.(2) The main arguments have been addressed in Civil Writ Petition No. 426 of 1981. with regard to the validity of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and, thereforee, it is necessary to advert to the facts in this case in some detail. The facts of the other cases are similar to Civil Writ Petition No. 426 of 1981. except the date of the Notification and the villages in respect of which the said notification under section 4 has been issued.(3) The undisputed facts are that the land of the petitioner Munni Lal is situate in village Satbari. There is in existence a Master Plan of Delhi which came in to effect on 1st September, 1962 under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act. The said Master Plan covers the whole of the Union Territory ...
O.K. Ralhan Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT376
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This .petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi Upholding that of the Chief. Metropolitan Magistrate, holding that Kusum Dewan and Mohinder.Adyani,who were granted pardon, were Approvers not only in respect of the charge-sheet for offences under sections 120-B Indian Penal Code read with sections 420 IPC., 420 Dpc 467/468 and 471 Indian Penal Code but also in the complaint filed under section 120 Indian Penal Code read with 5 of the Imports and Export Control Act, 1947, Section 420 IPC/4681PC 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act 1947 and that on that account, the complaint case be committed to Sessions, after the said Approvers had been examined, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 306(5) of the Code. (2) The petition has been filed in the following circumstances. The report of the Controller of Imports and Exports, dated May...
Suessen Textile Bearings Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas492(Delhi); 1987(12)DRJ29; 1984RLR262
G.C. Jain, J.(1) Petitioner No. 1, Suessen Textile Bearings Limited (for short 'the Company') is a public company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (for short 'the Act'). Manherlal Dwarkadas Mehta, Suresh Manherlal Mehta and Chempaklal Jivraj Mehta, petitioners 2 to 4, are some of its present directors. The Company manufactures textile equipment. For its business it took loans and arranged credit facilities, which were provided, inter alia, by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Bank of India and Central Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 42.5 lakhs to Rs. 95.85 lakhs during the relevant years, i.e. year ending 30/9/1965 up to 30/9/1971. While allowing these loan and credit facilities these financial institutions insisted on personal guarantees and the personal guarantees were furnished by petitioners 2 to 4 and Hansmukhlal Gordhandas Dalal and Shantilal Jivraj Mehta, respondents 3 and 4 herein. (2) On February 24. 1965 the Board of Directors of the Company adopted a resolut...
Ram Parshad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT112; 1984(6)DRJ234
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) Shri G. S. Dakha Additional Sessions Judge Delhi by his judgment under appeal found the appellants guilty under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life. Appellant Ram Parshad was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 5.000.00 as fine and in default thereof he was required to undergo a further R.I. for two years. This appeal has been directed against this judgment.(2) We may at the very outset point out that one of the appellants, Ram Kumar is stated to have died after the conviction and during pendency of this appeal. We are, thereforee, left to deal with the case of appellant Ram Parshad alone.(3) At this stage we may give a brief resume of the events that led to the commission of the crime. The accused Ram Parshad at the time of the occurrence was employed in the custom department drawing a salary of Rs.400.00 . The deceased, in the case is one Kaptan. The houses of the parties are separated by a common wall and Smt. Hukam ...
Om Wati Vs. Kishan Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi43; 1984RLR363
Avadh Behari, J.(1) Om Wati, appellant, was married to the respondent Kishan Chand, on 28.2.76. A female child was born to them. The child lived for about 2 years and then died on 10.9.79. On 1.9.80 the wife brought a petition for divorce against the husband on two grounds. (1) Desertion and (2) Cruelty. Mr. K.S. Gupta, Add. District Judge tried this petition. He came to the conclusion that the parties were living apart since Feb. 79. On this finding he found that 2 years period had not elapsed and thereforee a case for desertion had been not made out. On cruelty he found that there was no sufficient evidence to establish that ground. So he dismissed the petition on 3.4.81. This was the first litigation between the parties. (2) On 22.5.81 the wife brought the present petition. This petition is founded only on the ground of desertion. This time the wife has not pleaded any cruelty. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petition on 14.7.82. From the decree of dismissal the ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT171TriDel
1. By the present reference application purporting to be under Sections 35G and 35H of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the applicant, namely the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, requires of the Tribunal that a statement of the case decided in the Tribunal's Order No. 392D/1983 dated 15-6-1983 be drawn up and the questions of law as in paragraph 8 of the application be referred to the Supreme Court.2. When the matter was called today, Shri K.D. Tayal, SDR, appeared for the applicant Collector and Smt. Rainu Walia for the respondent. The Tribunal had also received a telegram which appears to be from the respondent sugar mill, seeking an adjournment on the ground that no copy of the referepce application had beep received from the "appellant". However, for reasons which will be apparent, we did not find it necessary to adjourn the matter.3. We pointed out to Shri Tayal that the Order dated 15-6-1983, in respect of which a reference was asked for, had been passed by a Special ...
Motilal and Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT157TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Central Government, which, under section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. In this appeal the appellants challenged the validity of the impugned order of the Collector on four main grounds : - (i) The Show Cause Notice was issued by the Collector on 7-6-80 whereas the order sought to be reviewed therein was passed by the Assistant Collector on 21-7-79. Therefore, the show cause notice was barred under section 35A(3)(b) ; (ii) The show cause notice is vague as no amount was mentioned therein in accordance with Rule 10 of section 11 A. The show cause notice was invalid on this ground also in view of the case law in the matter of J.B. A. Printing Inks Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1980 E.L.T. 121 (Bom.) ; (iii) There was denial of natural justice by the Collector while passing the impugned order as h...
D.E.S.U. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT425TriDel
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. In this appeal the appellants imported parts of Coal Mill and Boiler which were classified by the Custom House under item 84.63, CTA. The appellants submitted that these are correctly classifiable under 84.01/2 of the CTA. In support of their argument they submitted that the imported goods are not parts of Journal Head or Journal Housing but are actually Journal Head and Journal Housing as per Bill of Entry. The authorities below held that the imported goods namely Journal Head, Journal Saddle and lower Journal Housing were Bearing Housing and therefore classified them under 84.63, CTA. The appellants argued these are not Bearing Housing but parts of Coal Mill and Boiler and accordingly claimed assessment under 84.01/2, CTA.3. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »