Delhi Court February 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohammed Sayeed (Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives Vs. Chira ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi104; 24(1983)DLT93
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. By our judgment dated May 28, 1982 we had disposed of three connected appeals, L.P.A. 190 of 1970, L.P.A. 191 of 1970 and L.P.A. 192 of 1970. All the three appeals were dismissed. We had further directed that the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, will decide the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the principles set out by us.2. This review application has been moved in L.P.A. No. 192 of 1970. The contention is that though the appeal has been dismissed, it should have been dismissed as no longer competent and our observation to the effect that the Competent Authority under the Act will decide the matter afresh should not have been given. It is submitted that it had been urged on behalf of the respondents that inasmuch as the appellant Mohd. Sayeed, the original tenant, was dead, his legal representatives could not maintain the appeal and claim that protection of the Ac...
Satya Wati Pathak Vs. Hari Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi106; 23(1983)DLT345; 1983RLR695
Sultan Singh, J. 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') by the heirs of the deceased is for enhancement of compensation. The other two appeals F.A.O. No. 137 of 1974 and F.A.O. No. 174 of 1974 by the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle are for the dismissal of the application for compensation filed under Section 110-A of the Act. This judgment will dispose of the three appeals.2. On 15th May, 1968 Laxman Dutt Pathak, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of the other appellants died in an accident with Truck No. PNR 5057 on the road in front of Government Higher Secondary School, Karala, Delhi. On 14th June, 1968 his widow, minor sons, daughter and mother of the deceased filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and interest. They have alleged that Mr. Pathak on 15th May, 1968 was going in a bus from Delhi to Karala and at about 8.20 A.M. along with others he got down from the bus i...
St. Michael's Education Foundation and Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT359
S.B. Wad, J. 1. The petitioner Foundation runs a school by name St. Michael's Grammer School. This is a private un-aided school recognised by Delhi Administration under Delhi School Education Act. On some complaints the Director of Education ordered a statutory enquiry in the alleged mal-practices in this school. One Shri K.G. Singh, Deputy Director was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The Director of Education considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and decided that the recognition of the school should be withdrawn under Rule 56 of the Delhi School EducationRules, 1973. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioners on 3-5-1980. Broadly the allegations in the Show Cause Notice pertain to non-payment of the salaries, provident fund etc. to the teachers, non confirmation of teachers and removal of teachers, mis-utilisation of funds, failure to produce account books and the minute books of the meetings of the Managing Committee before the Authorities etc. On 27-5-1980 the petitio...
inder and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT428
N.N. Goswamy, J.1. This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1982 as both these appeals arise out of the same trial and judgment. The appellants, Inder and Bishamber in Cr. A. No. 2/82 and Karan in Cr. A. No. 69 of 1982 have been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 22nd March, 1980 at about 3.00 p.m., a mini bus No. DHP 145 was proceeding from Tis Hazari to Inter State Bus Terminus. Between Tis Hazari and Novelty Cinema, thethree accused along with one Ramesh boarded the bus. One of the accused had put a knife at the back of the driver of bus and ordered him to continue to drive as per his orders. One of the other accused robbed the passengers of their watches and cash at the point of the knife. The remaining two accused were guarding the bus by standing with open knife at the back of the bus. ...
Prahlad Das and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD356(Delhi)
1. The assessee in appeal is Prahlad Das & Co. of Sheopurkalan, District Morena, M.P., a registcred firm. The year of assessment involved is 1970-71 for which the previous year ended on Diwali 1969.2. The original assessment of the assessee-firm was completed on 28-2-1973 on a total income of Rs. 55,411. Later on, the Commissioner, being of the opinion that the said assessment was erroneous inasmuch as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because the assessee though liable for penalty under Section 273(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and the penal interest under Section 217 of the Act, was not subjected to the said penalty and penal interest by the ITO.Accordingly, the Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the assessee dated 15-1-1975 recording his aforesaid opinion and stated in the said notice that 'in exercise of powers conferred upon me by Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, I propose to make suitable remedial orders'. In reply, dated 28-1-1975, to...
Naresh Kumar Gupta (Huf) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer/income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD121(Delhi)
1. Both the appeals are by the assessee and the assessment year involved is 1978-79.2. In WT Appeal No. 49 (Asr.) of 1981, the grievance of the assessee relates to the adding back of gifts made by the assessee, at Rs. 49,000, since the WTO as also the learned AAC were of the opinion that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CGT v. Tej Nath [1972] 86 ITR 96 (FB), the HUF could not have made the valid gifts.3. In IT Appeal No. 164 (Asr.) of 1981, which is an offshoot of the above proposition, the grievance of the assessee relates to adding back of interest amount of Rs. 6,520 on the gifted amount of Rs. 49,000 and the reasoning of the learned lower authorities remain the same as in the case of the wealth-tax.4. Facts briefly stated are that the assessee made five gifts of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 10,000, Rs. 7,000, Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 15,000 in favour of Master Sudhir Gupta, son of Shri Kamal Kishore Gupta, Master Rakesh Kumar, son of Shri Kama...
Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC350DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Central Government (hereinafter called Appeal) which, under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal and is to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the Central Government issued Central Excise Notification No. 36/76 dated 25-2-1976 in pursuance of the recommendations of the Sampath Committee for giving incentive by way of excise duty concession on sugar to sugar factories which had undertaken a programme of expansion of the factory. The said Notification extended a concessional rate of basic excise duty of 15% ad valorem and an additional excise duty (leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance Act 1959) of 5% ad valorem, on the basis of the price determined by the Central Government, from time to time, under Sub-section 3 (c) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, ...
Shri Parmanand Vs. Smt. Sneh Lata and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1983
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ379; 1983RLR285
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is the tenant's petition against the order of the Competent Authority (Slum) dated 27.5.1981 permitting the landlord to file eviction petition against him. After the said order the landlord has filed the petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, (Section 14(1)(e)) and the tenant's securing alternate accommodation (Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Against the said order the tenant preferred a writ petition in this Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 2239 of 1981. The petition was dismissed in liming. The Supreme Court granted a Special Leave Petition against the order of this Court which was later on converted into Civil Appeal No. 1790 of 1982. On May 3, 1982 the Supreme Court disposed of the said appeal with the following order :'Having given our anxious consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court should consider the matter afresh. The High Court shall hear the parties and then com...
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC355DTri(Delhi)
1. The question involved in this case is whether countervailing duty as applicable to motor vehicle parts was chargeable on valves, piston, piston rings etc., of internal combustion engines imported by the appellants under the subject Bill of Entry in May, 1974.2. The case was argued before us on 22-2-1983. Shri Jamadar stated that the appellants had been granted an industrial licence to manufacture diesel engines, that they manufactured diesel engines for industrial application, that their engines were principally used for fitting to shovels, cranes, oil drilling rigs, generator sets, compressors etc.and only about 11% of these engines were fitted to dumpers, that even if dumpers be treated as motor vehicles, since predominant use of their engines was for non-vehicular industrial application, their engines could not be classed as parts of motor vehicles (vide A.I.R. 1976 SC 1418) and, therefore, components of such engines could not be charged to C.V. duty as parts of motor vehicles. ...
Kaushalya Rani and anr. Vs. Waryam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1983
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT403
G.R. Luthra, J. 1. The present revision petition is directed against an order dated 25th April, 1981 of Shri K.C. Lohia, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Vide said order an application for leave to defend filed by the tenants was dismissed and the tenants were directed to be evicted. 2. Originally the tenant was Shri J.B. Kansal in respect of a portion of the first floor of house No. 34 UA, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. He, however, died during the pendency of the litigation and was succeeded by his widow Smt. Kaushalya Rani and his minor son Deepak Kumar who are now the petitioners before this Court. S. Waryam Singh is the respondent and he is landlord of the premises. 3. According to S. Waryam Singh he is the owner of property No. 34 UA, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. There is no dispute about the portion which is in occupation of Smt. Kaushalya Rani and her son. The landlord brought a petition under Section 25B read with Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the tena...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »