Delhi Court October 1984 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.
The Staff Superintendent of State Bank of India Vs. the Presiding Offi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: [1985(50)FLR154]; ILR1985Delhi931; (1985)IILLJ440Del
Aggarwal, J.(1) On a difference of opinion between Mr. Justice Rajinder Sachar and Ms. Justice Leila Seth, the following point, namely 'THAT the government made a reference, after it had already refused to refer the matter earlier and recorded reasons for the refusal had been communicated to the parties in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act, without recording reasons or having material before it, the said reference is invalid.'HAS been referred for my decision. The points on which Sachar J. and Seth J. had agreed and disagreed are pin-pointed in their joint order dated 14th August 1984. The said order reads as under '.'THE points urged by Dr. A.nand Prakash, learned counsel for the management, were as follows : 1. As the government had communicated its decision dated 1st August 1972 not to make the reference under section 10(1) of the Act it acted in breach of the principles of natural justice to refer the matter for adjudication as per its order dated 16th August 1974 without...
Televista Electronics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD161(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a private limited company, has challenged the levy of interest in the sum of Rs. 85,110 under Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') Some antecedent facts have to be noticed first.2. The assessee-company has been a regular assessee for the past many years. The accounting year followed is the financial year. Assessment was completed for this year on 27-3-1982 on a total income of Rs. 6,58,140. As part of this order, the ITO had directed as under: 3. On receipt of the copy of the assessment order, the assessee wrote to the ITO, on 8-4-1982, as under: While calculating the tax on the assessed income, a sum of Rs. 85,110 has been charged towards interest under Section 217. This action is patently incorrect and such provisions are not applicable to the company as no notice under Section 210 was issued by the department and, accordingly, the assessee-company was not obliged to file any statement of income under Section 209A or any estimate in respect thereof, w...
Savita Chemicals (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC336Tri(Delhi)
1. These are four Revision applications [three filed by M/s. Savita Chemicals (P) Ltd., Bombay and the one filed by M/s. Sundershan Chemicals (I) Ltd., Bombay], before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, which now stand transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and are treated as Appeals. The goods imported in all the four appeals are alike and common issue is involved in all these appeals which has arisen out of the consolidated order of the Appellate Collector, Bombay, so, we dispose of all these four appeals by this common order. Copy of the order will be placed in each file.2. As per the contention of the Appellants in all these 4 appeals, they had imported consignments of liquid paraffin USP grade during the period September, 1978 to December, 1978 and the original assessment for the purpose of counterveiling duty had been done under Item 11(A) CET. The Appellants challenged the recovery of the counterveiling duty by filing ...
Star Metal and Tubes Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC641Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal, filed before the Tribunal under the provision of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II on 9-4-1984, modifying the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 31-10-1981.The impugned order of the Collector was passed, in review, on a petition for this purpose having been made to him by the appellants herein, under the provisions of Section 35A of the Act, as then prevailing.2. The proceedings against the appellants were initiated by means of a show cause notice, issued on 14th October, 1980, received by them on 31st October, 1980, whereby they were required to show cause as to why excise duty of Rs. 18,10,545.90 plus special excise duty of Rs. 82,975.58, to talling to Rs. 18,93,521.48, be not recovered from them on the ground that they had effected clearances of products manufactured by them falling under Tariff It...
M.R.F. Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1984
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT774TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The dispute in the present matter is regarding the correct classification of a consignment of Cut and Calendered Steel Fabric for the purpose of levy of Customs duty under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The lower authorities classified the goods under heading No. 40.05/16 of the said Schedule. The appellants' claim was that the goods were in the nature of a reinforcing steel fabric and that, therefore, the correct classification was under, heading No.73.27/28 which was specific for rein- forcing fabric made of iron or steel.3. Despite a registered notice of hearing, the appellants were not represented in the Court when the appeal was called on for hearing.However, they have sent a letter dated 8-10-1984 to ...
Raunaq and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1984
Reported in: [1986]158ITR30(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2581 to 2587 of 1983 seek the quashing of the proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the respondents for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1965-66 and 1967-68 to 1970-71. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, carring on business as traders, manufacturers and agents. For the assessment years 1963-64 to 1965-66 and 1967-68 to 1970-71, the petitioner had submitted its returns of income under section 139 of the Act before the Income-tax Officers who, at that time, were holding jurisdiction over the petitioner's assessments. The assessments for these years were completed under section 143(3) of the Act after scrutiny of books of account, balance-sheets, profit and loss accounts and other evidence produced before the Income-tax Officers from time to time in support of the returns. The copies of the assessment orders for the above assessment years have...
Angelo Fernandes Vs. S. Chand and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT101
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Justice delayed is justice denied' is a well known proverb in judicial parlance. Many researches have been made. Commissions constituted, Seminars held. Conferences convened and resolutions adopted to find ways and means to cut delays in order to administer speedy justice, Even legislative amendments in various Acts have been enforced to achieve this object. But nothing appears to have been thought of or effective steps taken to avoid delay, in large number of cases wherein a party succeeds in obtaining a decree but fails to reap the fruits of it in his life time. It has rightly been observed that 'it is easier to obtain a decree, of whatever nature it may be, but difficult to execute if.(2) The present case is one of the many examples of the cases falling under the second category. Relevant facts given in chronological order will fully demonstrate the agony being faced by the poor decree holder in getting his dues. Late Dr. J. B. Rajam was the author of three books ...
Moti Films Vs. Kailash Saraogi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1984
Reported in: 1985RLR250
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 331.419-89 due under an agreement dated 9.8 80 in respect of a emotion picture 'Pratishod'. When the suit was registered it was observed on the application of the plaintiff seeking interim relief (LA. NO. 56/84) that the Court was not satisfied that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit because of Clause 11 of the aforesaid agreement between the parties. On this ground interim relief was declined to the plaintiffs. The defendants filed an application being La, 4121/84 praying that before they are required to file their W/S is , regarding jurisdiction of this Court be decided first. There was opposition to this application. By order dated 17.8.84 1984, this application of the defendants was allowed and the following preliminary issue was framed 'Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit : (2) I have heard the arguments on this issue. Perhaps, the wording of issue was not c...
Renu Sachdev Vs. B.S. Rekhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1984
Reported in: 1985RLR96
J.D. Jamm, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against preliminary order passed by Sdm New Delhi, u/s 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code') on 11th May 1984 thereby assuming jurisdiction to decide the question of possession with respect to premises No : N-32 Jangpura Extension, under the provisions of the said Section. The said order was made by the Sdm on the basis of police report dated 21.1.84 made by police Post Jangpura and the material accompanying it.(2) The facts leading to the aforesaid action of the learned Sdm in brief are that a double room tenement No : 32 (A&B;), Block 'N', Jangpura Extension, was allotted to Charanjit Singh Rekhi s/o Shri Nand Singh Rekhi by the Estate Office, Govt of India, vide letter dated 8th/21st Sept, 1951. The said allotment was made consequent upon his eviction from quarter No : A-23/214, Lodi Road, which he was occupying earlier, on 11.9.51. Subsequently the Managing Officer/ Settlement Officer, Government Built properties, favor ...
Hira Lal Vs. M.V.N. Rao and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)Crimes936a; ILR1985Delhi335
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this petition for issue of writ of habeas corpus is to the detention of Krishan Lal Udayalal Bhora (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) pursuant to an order dated 28th June, 1984 having been passed by respondent No. I under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA'). (2) The detenu admittedly was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Girish Stores at 59(A, Karwar Street, Fort, Bombay. On 24th and 25th January, 1984 the business and residential premises of the detenu were searched by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate. From the aforesaid shop Indian Currency of Rs. 30,000 was seized Along with following foreign exchange : U. S. $. 376, Stg. 40, Kuwait Dinar 640, Oman Baisa 900, Oman Riyals 155, Bahrain Dinar 215, Saudi Riyala 281, U. A. E. Dhms. 3565, Singapore $ 140, Australian $ 18, Canadian S 267, Qatar Riyala 100, Iraqi Dinar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »