Delhi Court February 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.
Ramji Lal Mahindar Kumar Vs. Naresh Kumari and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi95; 24(1983)DLT100; 1983RLR381
Sultan Singh, J.1. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dismissing the petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction. The other Revision Petition (C.R. 288 of 1982) is directed against the judgment and order dismissing their application for leave to amend the plaint. This judgment will dispose of the two revision petitions.2. The registered partnership firm Ramji Lal Mahinder Kumar, plaintiffs-petitioners above named, on 24th January, 1981 filed a suit for permanent injunction against Smt. Naresh Kumari Sharma (respondent-defendant No. 1) and M/s. Bhagwan Dass Jagan Nath, (respondent-defendant No. 2). The plaintiffs have alleged that the firm Ramji Lal Mahinder Kumar has been tenant in the shop along with roof bearing Municipal No. 635, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, that the building is a single storeyed building and plaintiffs have been using the said shop and the roof for the las...
Shri O.P. Nigam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ365
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.1. This ease has a chequered history. The petitioner has been in these courts for the last 17 years.2. These are the fasts. The petitioner was employed in NorthernRailway. Originally he was selected for appointment as a trade apprentice.After completing his apprenticeship, he was appointed in the post of a skilledwelder in the grade of Rs. 110-180 plus usual allowances in the RailwayWelding Shop at Amritsar. The petitioner, it was alleged, Was guilty of misconduct. It was alleged, that he had committed a theft. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in an order of hisremoval from service on 30th July, 1964. 3. The petitioner brought a writ petition in this court (C.W. No. 56-D/66; challenging the order of his removal from service. Prakash Narain J. quashed the departmental action including the inquiry and the ultimate punishment awarded to the petitioner on the ground that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was issued by an a...
Sh. Devinder Singh Puri Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT23a; 1985(9)DRJ48
Sultan Singh, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th November, 1981 of the Additional Controller passing an order of eviction against the petitioner. 2. On 1st March, 1979 the respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from Barsati room of Property at G-41, Green Park, New Delhi. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in December, 1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- exclusive of water and electricity charges. The size of the Barsati room is 15' X 10 1/2. He has alleged that the premises were let for residential purposes and were required bona fide for occupation as a residence for members of his family dependent upon him and that he is the owner of the same. The first floor of the said house is available to the respondent. The ground floor of the said building is with other tenants. The family of ...
S.S. Kanwar (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD120(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a HUF of which Shri S.S. Kanwar is the karta. The previous year for the assessment year 1971-72 ended on 31-3-1971. The assessee filed a return of income on 27-9-1971 declaring income at Rs. 98,711. A revised return was filed on 14-3-1974 declaring income at Rs. 1,00,490. The gross income from dividend amounted to Rs. 92,638 and the income from the shares of Bharat Steel Tubes amounted to Rs. 49,066 in respect of which exemption was claimed under Section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act, on 25-3-1974, the ITO allowed deduction under Section 80K to the extent of Rs. 49,066. The assessee had received interest of Rs. 17,032 against which he claimed interest of Rs. 31,327 out of which Rs. 30,062 was paid to First National City Bank and Rs. 1,265 was paid to Life Insurance Corporation. The assessee had purchased shares of the value of Rs. 3,07,350 of Bharat Steel Tubes by taking initial loans from Union B...
Usha Gupta Vs. Santosh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ217
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order of learned trial court dated 21st October, 1982 whereby the learned trial court declined the application of the petitioner (mother) of the interim custody of her only minor son who is at present in the custody of Sh. Santosh Kumar, elder brother of the deceased father of the minor child.2. It appears that the petitioner, Smt. Usha Gupta was married to one Shri Pushpendra Kumar in February, 1972. Unfortunately Shri Pushpendra Kumar died in October, 1974 at Saharanpur due to an unfortunate accident. It was only in December, 1974 that this unfortunate minor son was born to Smt. Usha Gupta, the petitioner.3. It was stated in the application for appointment of guardian that the child was born at Meerut where Smt. Usha Gupta was staying with her mother-in-law and father-in-law. Since Smt. Usha Gupta became widow before the birth of the child, she stayed with her in-laws for sometime and thereafter shifted to Delhi to h...
Shri Yashbir Singh Vs. Delhi Administration Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ369; 1983RLR307
A.B. Rohatgi, J.1. It was Diwali night between 18th and 19th October, 1971. One Sis Ram, a head constable, and the present petitioner, Yashbir Singh, a constable, were on patrol duty on that night in he area of Jama Masjid. They brought two persons--Ram Saran and Siri Chand to the Police Station of Jama Masjid without any rhyme or reason. On their way to the police station, the head constable and the petitioner divested Ram Saran of Rs. 66.45 which he had on his person and misappropriated the same. Ram Saran and Siri Chand were detained in the police station and beaten. They were released only after Ram Saran's brother came to the police station and paid Rs. 45/- as an illegal gratification.2. A departmental inquiry was launched against Sis Rant and the present petitioner after obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate under the Punjab Police Rule 16.38. The Inquiry Officer held them guilty of grave misconduct in the discharge of their official duties. The Additional Superint...
Shri I.D. Rajput Vs. Shri Ramji Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT23; 1983(5)DRJ18
Leila Seth, J.1. This revision petition is by the petitioner-tenant. He challenges the order of the Rent Controller dated 4th September, 1982, evicting him from the dispute premises and submits that it is not in accordance with law. He contends that the entire approach is erroneous.2. The premises in dispute is the ground floor of house No. S-96, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The owner-landlord is the respondent Ramji Dass. The tenant is the petitioner I.D. Rajput. He has been a tenant in the said premises since May, 1970. The premises were let out to him for his residence and are being used for this purpose.3. Originally he was inducted under a limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (to be referred to in short as ''the Act') for eleven months at a rental of Rs. 550/- per month After a short while the rent was increased to Rs. 650/- per month. On the expiry of eleven months, the landlord again applied for and obtained an order under Section 21 of the Act ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pyrites, Phosphates and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC391DTri(Delhi)
1. This has been a proceeding pending before the Central Government which is now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Sub-section 2 of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter in this order referred to as the 'Act').2. The respondents namely M/s. Pyrites, Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd,, are a Government of India concern and are engaged in the mining of pyrites at Amjhore in the State of Bihar. The pyrites come out in the form of lumps and the bigger lumps are used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid while the smaller lumps (after crushing) are used for agricultural purposes in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The mining of pyrites by the respondents was commenced during the years 1967-68 and initially the low grade pyrites or smaller lumps were being dumped in and around the mine as refuse. After doing some research work in the matter, the respondents found that by manually screening such refuse, the same could be put to use for agricultural purposes and since...
Indian Cables Co Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)(12)ELT558TriDel
1. Two questions that arise for consideration in this Revision Petition to the Govt. of India, transferred to the Tribunal and heard by us as an appeal, pursuant to Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, are- (a) whether the claim for refund of the quantum of duty alleged to have been, collected in excess of what was lawfully due and paid without protest was barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act ; and (b) if not, are the goods in question assessable under Heading 27. 10 (i) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and under no other Heading 2. The import of the goods in question (Cables impregnating non-draining compound) in five different consignments, would appear to have occurred on diverse dates between May 1977 and December 21, 1978 (and not December 21, 1979 as would appear from the annexure to the Appellate Order). It was alleged, inter alia, that- (a) notwithstanding the supply of the technical data together with other materials to establish exigibility to duty of th...
GoodwIn Rubber Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC504DTri(Delhi)
1. This matter which was originally before the Central Government by way of revision petition under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been received by the Tribunal as an appeal by virtue of provisions of Section 35P of the Act, and is being disposed of as such.2. This appeal is directed against a composite order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras whereby he disposed of appeals filed by the present appellant along with two appeals of other parties because there were identical questions for determination. This was by his order dated 11-2-1980, which had, in turn, confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kottayam on 5-7-1978.3. The facts giving rise to the controversy are to the effect that the appellants, claimed to be a partnership concern, is manufacturing certain products relating to tyre industry and it is alleged that one of the products which is finally ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »