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.
Indian Cable Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT434TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The appellants are manufacturers of wires and cables. They also produce, among other things, a substance which they describe as "PVC Compound" from out of duty-paid PVC resin. During the material time, namely, 18-6-1977 to 28-6-1977 they manufactured 31 M.Ts. of PVC compound and removed the same for captive consumption within the factory. On 15-12-1977, the Supdt. of Central Excise issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellants to show cause why the duty leviable on the goods-Rs. 1,21,768.00-should not be demanded from them in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.). In reply, the appellants submitted that they were manufacturing "granule" (PVC Compound) from duty-paid ...
Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT243TriDel
1. In this appeal before the Tribunal, the question which arises for consideration is as to what could be treated as the 'base period' and 'base clearances' for the purpose of construing Notification No.198/76-C.E., dated 16-6-1976 vis-a-vis the products of appellants' company (Division : J.K. Engineers' Files).2. The facts, as can be gathered from the orders of the authorities below, emanating from the issuance of a Notice to show cause dated 6-1-1979 are; that the appellants in their aforesaid Division were manufacturing 'files' and 'rasps', falling within the description of 'cutting tools'. The production of these goods commenced in appellants' factory some time in 1950 but these products were brought under excise control with effect from 1-3-1974 when for the first time when Tariff Entry 51-A was introduced in the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The company subjected itself to excise control from the date of introduction of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iv Vs. Padma Bhandari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR69(Delhi)
Chadha, J.1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the Department raises the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the purchase of land by the assessed in 1958 and its acquisition by the Government in 1963 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1944, did not represent an adventure in the nature of trade ?' 2. The facts noticed in the statement of case are these. The question arises out of the proceedings for the assessment year 1967-68, the relevant accounting period ending on March 30, 1967. Mrs. Padma Bhandari, the assessed, had purchased land measuring 8 bighas 5 bids was in Village Kilokri near the Mathura Road and Ring Road crossing on August 25, 1958, for Rs. 1,10,000 by adjustment of displaced persons' claims at Rs. 12,135 per bigha. On March 5, 1963, a notification under s. 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued by the D...
Bishan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes155; 1984(6)DRJ78
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This judgment will dispose ofCr.A.23/83andCr.A. 68/83. The appellants were convicted under Section 392 and sentenced with the aid of Section 397 Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Hence, these appeals.(2) On 4-10-1981 at about 3.00 p.m. the accused appellants threatened Ram Sumer (Public Witness 4) near the public latrine in Subzi Mandi with knives and relieved him of a purse which contained Rs. 73.00 and two receipts. When accused had gone about 20 paces Ram Sumer raised an alarm. The public chased the accused, apprehended them and recovered knives. Ram Sumer snatched his purse from accused Bishan. The public had also given beatings to the accused persons. In the meanwhile, the police had been informed by one Ganga Ram Pradhan. Si Om Prakash (Public Witness 5) came and arrested the accused who were smelling of liquor. Ram Sumer produced before him the purse, currency notes and receipts. He also got the accused examined by a medical officer. S...
Nasir Ahmed Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT310
Aggarwal, J. (1) The appellant Naseer Ahmad along with his father Mohd. Umar was tried on the charge of murdering his step-brother Naseem Ahmad. Mr. G.S. Dakha, Additional Sessions Judge, found Naseer Ahmad guilty of the offence charged with and has sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Naseer Ahmad was also separately charged under section 27 of the Arms Act and was found guilty of the said offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence awarded under both the offences were ordered to run concurrently. Mohd. Umar was acquitted. Against his conviction and sentence Naseer Ahmad has come in appeal. (2) The prosecution case is this. Mohd. Umar with his family including the wife Shakeela (P.W. 1) and the sons Naseer Ahmad appellant and the deceased Naseem Ahmad resided at 313, Subzimandi Malkaganj, Road, Delhi. Shakeela is the second wife of Mohd. Umar. Naseer Ahmed is the son from Shakeela. Naseem Ahmad was the son of Mohd. Umar from his first wife. Shakeela ha...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Kanti Lal Sudh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT128
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.(1) One Kanti Lal Sudh and Adhikari Lal Sudh residents of D-33, N.D.S.E. Part Ii, New Delhi, came to be prosecuted for contravention of section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, before the court of Shri Gulab Tulsiani, Metropolitan Magistrate who after trial gave benefit of doubt to the accused, dismissed the complaint and acquitted them. Aggrieved by this order of acquittal the Delhi Development Authority has come in this acquittal appeal. (2) For purposes of convenience we may reproduce brief facts which are that by a report it was brought to the notice of the appellant on 20-5-74 that the aforesaid respondents on or around January 1973 had permitted to be used a building bearing No. D-33, N.D.S.E. Part Ii, New Delhi to a nonconforming use inasmuch as the office of Kanti Lal & Co. was being run therein. The case of the appellant is that the land/building falls in zone F-3 and it can be used only for residential purposes in accordance with the Master Pl...
Mohinder Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT161
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This order will dispose of Cr.M.(M) 24 of 1983 and Cr.M.(M) 75 of 1983. (2) The brief facts are that Mohinder Singh's daughter, Pramjit Kaurwas married to Paramjit Singh son of Mal Singh. But Mal Siagh and his two sons were annoyed with her because of insufficient dowry. Sometime after this marriage, the marriage of Baijit Singh son of Babu Singh a nephew of Mohinder Singh took place in Fazilka on 31-10-1982 which was attended by Paramjit Singh, s/o Mal Singh. The marriage party returned on 1-11-1982. Mohinder Singh had come from his village in Punjab to the house of Babu Singh in Ashok Vihar in connection with the said marriage. The accused persons, namely Mal Singh and his two sons Swaran Singh and Sikandar Singh came there at 11.15 a.m. and complained to Mohinder Singh that he had not given appropriate dowry and that at his instance Paramjit Singh attended the marriage of Babu Singh's son, much against wishes of Mal Singh. The three accused then attacked Mohinder S...
Ram Wadhaya Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT492TriDel
1. The facts, in so far material, in this Appeal to the Gold Control Administrator, transferred to the Tribunal pursuant to Section 82-K of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are- (a) a quantity of 102.450 gms. of gold and gold ornaments, unaccounted in the GS-13 Register, was seized under Section 66 of the Act under a reasonable belief that they were acquired in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Act, in consequence of a search of the premises of Appellant-a certified goldsmith-on 19-10-74; (b) three account books and seven paper slips indicating transactions of sale and purchase of gold and gold ornaments unauthorisedly were also seized; (c) in his reply to a notice to show-cause for violation of Sections 41 and 55 of the Act, the Appellant submitted, inter alia, that- (i) the semi-finished ornaments as well as the ear rings were all family ornaments brought for remaking and polishing that day itself and are not required to be entered in the re...
Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR7(Delhi)
H.C. Goel, J. 1. These are seven references at the instance of the assessed, M/s, Yogiraj Charity Trust, 10, Daryaganj, Delhi. A common statement of case was submitted by the Tribunal for the seven assessment years in question, i.e., for assessment years 1959-60 to 1965-66 respectively. The following two questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the trust is exempt from tax under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and '(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the trust is exempt from tax under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Both these questions are in fact to the same effect. The first question has been referred in the three references arising out of assessments for assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62 as made under the old Act of 1922. The second question has been referred in the other four references relat...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Ramesh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT296
Aggarwal, J. (1) This is an appeal by the Delhi Administration against the judgment of Shri Mahesh Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge, acquitting the respondent Ramesh alias Alley son of Ram Lal, Satish Kumar, Ram Bharose alias Bhogal and Ramesh Chand alias Babban son of Makhan Singh, residents of Kucha Gokul Shah of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) The deceased Ramesh son of Jai Ram along with his brothers Khem Chand (P.W. 2), Peru alias Meeru Mal and Suresh alias Kude resided at 3047 Kucha Raja Sohan Lal, Bazar Sita Ram. The prosecution witnesses Lala Ram (P.W. 1) and Kailash (P.W. 4) also resided in the said premises. Kailash (P.W. 4) also resided with the deceased Ramesh. The deceased family and the prosecution witnesses Public Witness s 1and 4 are all of Dhanak caste. Peru and Kude had a betal shop at the corner of the Gali. (3) The accused party resided in Katra Gokul Shah, opposite to Chorasi Ghanta Mandir. Kucha Raja Sohan Lal and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »