Delhi Court September 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 6 of about 72 results (0.021 seconds)Hira Singh Vs. Hari Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi695
M.L. Jain, J. (1) In Tic general elections of 1983 to the Metropolitan Council, Delhi, respondent No. 1 Hari Ram was returned from Narela, Constituency No. 22. His close rival petitioner Hira Singh was defeated by a margin of 238 votes. In this election petition, he prays that (i) the election of the returned candidate be declared void, and (ii) that he be declared to have been duly elected under section 98 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein the Act), His grounds arc : (I)that corrupt practice has been committed; (n) that the result of the election was. materially affected (a) by commission of corrupt practice; (b) by improper reception, refusal and rejection of votes and acceptance of void votes; and (c) by non compliance of the provisions of the Act, and the Rules and orders made there under. It is also alleged that manipulation in the matter of issue of ballot papers, casting of votes and counting of ballot papers has taken place: see section 100(1) (b)&(d) (ii), ...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Kamlesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT293
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) The Assistant Commissioner Food & Supplies, Delhi filed a complaint against Kamlesh Kumar Gupta, partner of M/s. G.N. Traders, village Jawalaheri, alleging that on 22nd January 1973 the business premises of M/s. G.N. Traders was inspected by the Inspector, Food and Supplies, Delhi and on checking it was found that M/s. G.N. Traders had established a rice mill at Jawalaheri without a permit and further were carrying on rice milling operation without a license. It was further stated in the complaint that at the time of checking the mill 6235 bags of paddy and 258.55 quintals of rice were found. The accused Kamlesh Kumar Gupta was said to have violated the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called 'the Act'). The relevant part of Section 8 reads as under : '8.(1) No persons or authority shall, after the commencement of this Act, establish any new rice mill except ...
Tag this Judgment!Preetam Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT435
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The real question for decision in this Case is whether a probationer in a higher post can be reverted to the lower post when a substantial time during the period of probation he remains under suspension.(2) The petitioner, Pritam Singh, was working as Assistant Grade I officer in the Food Corporation of India (Corporation). By an order dated 23.12.79 he was promoted as Assistant Manager (Depot) on a provisional basis. He was to remain on probation for a period of one year. On satisfactory completion of the probationary period he was to be considered for confirmation to the post of Assistant Manager.(3) On 5.1.1979 the petitioner started functioning as Assistant Manager, Food Storage Depot, at Ellenabad(Distt.Hissar). He worked till 11.6.1979. On 12.6.1979 the Zonal Manager (North) suspended him under the power conferred by Reg. 66 sub-clause (1) of the Staff Regulations, 1971,(the Regulations) of the Corporation. Suspension continued till 6.3.1980 when the ...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Khosia Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ188
N.N. Goswami, J.(1) Have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at length. This Appeal has been filed against the order whereby the application for restoration of the case was dismissed.(2) The issues in the claim petition were framed in April, 1980. The case was adjourned for evidence to September'80. The petitioner did not take any steps to summons the witnesses. Further opportunity was granted and case was adjourned to 8-10-80. Again no steps were taken. The case was adjourned to 19-1-81. The situation remained the same. A further opportunity was granted and case was adjourned to 20-4-81 and then to 5-8-81. The situation remained the same and the petitioner did not taken any steps to summon his witnesses. Finally, the case came up before the tribunal on 25-9-1981. When it was dismissed for non-prosecution.(3) The application was filed at that stage for restoration of the case. By order dated 5-10-81 the case was restored and was adjourned to 15-12-81. Again the petitioner did not...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Khosla Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC397
N.N. Goswami, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. This Appeal has been filed against the order whereby the application for restoration of the case was dismissed.2. The issues in the claim petition were framed in April, 1980. The case was adjourned for evidence to Sept. 80. The petitioner did not take any steps to summon the witnesses. Further opportunity was granted and case was adjourned to 8.10.1980. Again no steps were taken. The case was adjourned to 19.1.1981. The situation remained the same. A further opportunity was granted and case was adjourned to 20.4.1981 and then to 5.8.1981. The situation remained the same and the petitioner did not take any steps to summon his witnesses. Finally, the case came up before the tribunal on 25.9.1981. When it was dismissed for non-prosecution.3. The application was filed at that stage for restoration of the case. By order dated 5.10.1981 the case was restored and was adjourned to 15.12.1981. Again the petitioner di...
Tag this Judgment!Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1984]149ITR151(Delhi)
Chadha, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for the decision of the court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 20,095 paid by the assessed under section 3(5) of the U. P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, is allowable as a business expenditure ?' 2. The assessed is M/s. Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. The reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60 and the relevant accounting period is the year ending October 31, 1958. The assessed has a factory at Nawabganj, District Gonda, U. P. The assessed claimed a deduction of Rs. 38,045 as interest and penalty paid for late payment of the cess due under the U. P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Cess Act'). In the course of the assessment, the ITO held that the penalty is in the nature of fine and, thereforee, it is not for the propose of business. The amount paid as interest on arrear...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dass Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT331
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This judgment would also dispose of Civil Writ No.756 of 1972 (ChandKumarv. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others) as the questions involved in both the writ petitions are same.(2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the Corporation'),respondent No. 1, is maintaining a number of primary schools. For purposes of supervision and control of the educational activities the area of the Corporation is divided into zones. The examinations of fifth class students of their primary schools in four subjects, namely, Arithmatic, Hindi, Social Studies and General Science are conducted by an examination board constituted by the Corporation. The test for the fifth subject, namely. Art, is taken by the teachers in the Schools itself After compiling the results the result sheets are sent to the Zonal Office by the examination board. From there these are collected by the Headmasters concerned or by the teach reauthorized by them. After the result is brought to the school the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahakali Plastic Weave Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1966DTri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, relating to the classification under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule of two products manufactured by the appellants. These have been described in the order-in-original as "various types of products obtained by lamination of one or two layers of paper with one or two layers of jute with bitumen as bonding agents". Specifically, two varieties of goods are concerned. The first is one consisting of two layers of paper with one layer of hessian in between with bitumen as a bonding agent. The other consists of one layer of paper with one layer of hessian, with bitumen again being the bonding agent. The lower authorities have held that the goods were classifiable under sub-item (2) of Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, as "paper-board and all other kinds of paper". As against this, the appellants contend that the goods are classifiable under Item 22A ibid as "jute manufactures".2. Appe...
Tag this Judgment!installment Supply P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1984]149ITR52(Delhi)
Chadha, J. 1. The question of law formulated for the opinion of this court in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short called 'the Act'), is : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in disallowing the sum of Rs. 30,000 or any lesser sum on the ground of its being capital expenditure ?' 2. The case relates to the assessment year 1965-66 for which the accounting period is the year ending March 31, 1965. The assessed is a private limited company engaged in the business of dealing as agents for sale of Tata Mercedes Trucks in Western U.P. It has also hire-purchase business. It has no premises of its own. It had taken on lease for its business the premises at 46, Janpath, New Delhi, about 25 years back. The assessed is now paying a monthly rent of Rs. 340.25 and the total area occupied is 5,405 sq. ft. The assessed felt that in the interest of its business certain repairs had to be carried out, and as the need for the su...
Tag this Judgment!Chetan Lal JaIn Vs. Manohar Lal Vohra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi150; 24(1983)DLT298; 1984(6)DRJ72; 1984RLR142
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against order of eviction passed by an Additional Rent Controller on 25th October, 1980 against the petitioner on the ground under clause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The facts giving rise to this revision petition succinctly are that on 18th December 1979, the respondent-landlord (for short the landlord moved an application under clause (e) of proviso to Section 14(1) read with Section 25-B of the Act for eviction of the petitioner (for short the tenant) from the demised premises comprised in house No. 123 (old No 122/11), Shankar Nagar, a trans Yamuna colony. It was averred that the demised premises had been let to the tenant for residential purpose and were required by the landlord who was owner thereof for occupation as residence for himself and the members of his family dependent upon him and that the landlord had no other reasonably suita...
Tag this Judgment!