Delhi Court August 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 9 of about 86 results (0.019 seconds)Kailash Chand Vs. Sakhir Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi177; 24(1983)DLT202; 1983(5)DRJ255; 1984RLR58
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellant Kailash Chand is the landlord and Sakhir Chand is the respondent tenant. The premises in dispute,, are situated at No.2289-B/VIII, Aqabkalan Masjid, Hinduwara, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, An eviction application was filed on the ground of non-filament of rent and personal bona fide requirement. In regard to arrears of rent the learned Additional Controller held that notice of demand has been duly served and a conditional order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was passed. On the other ground regarding personal bona fide requirement, the learned Additional Controller rejected the application. The landlord is living with his mother and his case was that he was likely to be married and his mother insisted that he should vacate the premises. His mother entered the witness box and supported him. The learned Additional Controller found that the landlord did not mention the bona fide requirement in his notice. He again failed to specify the oth...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Cold Storage and Refrig ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)99
: Prakash Narain, C.J. - The ITAT, Delhi Bench (C) has referred to this court the following question of law for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessed company is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32(1) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of building, machinery and plant of the Crown Flour Mills, Delhi ?'2. The assessed is a private limited company running a cold storage and flour mills. The relevant year for which the question arises is the asst. yr. 1962-63., the accounting year being the calendar year 1961. The assessed is a subsidiary of another private limited company known as Meattles Pvt. Ltd. The latter company carried on the business of speculation in shares and other commodities and also the business of running the flour mills known as Crown Flour Mills. Meattles Pvt. Ltd. decided to transfer the Crown Flour Mills to the assessed. The assessed also considered the proposal to start this business. On 1-2-1957 the Board of Directors of Meattl...
Tag this Judgment!Greaves Cotton Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT226TriDel
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. The goods under consideration in this case are described by the appellants as "Diamond Products". They were classified by the Excise authorities under Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, as "Grinding Wheels and the like". The appellants contested this classification, and it is for resolving this dispute that the matter has come up before us.3. Appearing for the appellants, Shri K.S.C. Bose explained that after the introduction of Item 51 in the Central Excise Tariff in 1971, the appellants had submitted a classification list under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, in which they listed various products manufactured by them. He stated that in this list the goods were described as being excisable un...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Handa Vs. Avinash Handa
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi445; 1984RLR410
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This order will dispose of Fao (M) 240/82 and Fao 275/82. (2) The parties were married on 5.12.77. A daughter was born to them on 23.1.79. Wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights that she had been ill treated and turned out on 15.4.79. The husband opposed but his defense was struck out on 1.8.80. She applied for permanent alimony on 4.8.80. A decree of restitution of conjugal rights in her favor was granted on 4.8.80. The husband filed a petition for divorce on 25.8.81 u/s 23(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [the Act], on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for a period of one year and over. That was opposed. (3) On 13.8.82 the learned District Judge directed the husband to pay permanent alimony at Rs. 350.00 p.m. to the wife and Rs. 150.00 p.m. to the daughter. The husband's appeal against that order is Fao 275/82. It was filed on 22.9.82. (4) On 13.8.82, by a separate order, he granted a decree of divorce in favor ...
Tag this Judgment!Quality Poly Vinyls (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT207
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This order will dispose of F.A.O. 243 of 1982, F.A O.244 of 1982 and G.M. 235 of 1982.(2) The Delhi Financial Corporation filed an application on 26-10-1978under Section 31 read with Section 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act,1951 (the Act) against M/s Quality Poly Vinyls (P) Ltd. for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,56,811.59. The learned Additional District Judge issued an ad interim injunction restraining the firm from transferring the assets and an adinterim order of attachment of security. A show cause notice was issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the Act as to why the interim order of attachment should not be made absolute and injunction confirmed. The company showed cause and filed a written statement on 6-2-1980. Replication was filed in March, 1980 on behalf of the Corporation. Issues were framed.The evidence of the Corporation was closed on 8-9-1980. Case was adjourned for the evidence of the company. On 27-10-1980 the company moved twoapplication...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT325; 1984LabIC1323; (1984)ILLJ174Del
S.S. Ghadha, J.(1) This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated August 26, 1977 whereby the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated March 28, 1972 referring the disputes by the Delhi Administration to the Additional Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and the order dated September 12, 1973 passed by Shri K.S. Sidhu, Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal determining the preliminary issues, was dismissed. (2) The appellant, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Go. Ltd. is a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the Management). The workmen employed by the Management in their Textile Marketing Organisation and as represented by the union known as D.C.M. Clerks Association (Regd.), Delhi served a notice of demand to the Management raising as many as 21 demands. The demands were not accepted by the Managem...
Tag this Judgment!