Delhi Court November 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.
J.P. Goyal Vs. Ajeet Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT197
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This order will also dispose of C.C.P.No. 41 of 1984. C.C.P. No. 13 of 1984 has been filed by the landlord while C.C.P. No. 41 of 1984 has been filed by the tenant and these petitions arise out of the same compromise and the statements made by the parties before the Addl. Rent Controller. (2) The premises in dispute were leased to the respondent under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for a period of three years commencing from 1-7-1976. The period of tenancy was to expire on 30-6-1979. As the premises were not vacated, the landlord filed a petition for warrants of possession in July 1979. The tenant filed certain objections. During the trial of those objections, the Addl. Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had not given any reasons for creating tenancy for a limited period either in his application or in his statement and as such the petition had to be decided after recording evidence of the parties as regards the requirement of the la...
Harbhajan Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1912
ORDERD.R. Khanna, J.1. These two criminal revisions have been moved by Harbhajan Singh and Sita Ram Kapur against an order dated 26-10-1981 of Shri O. P. Gogne, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, whereby charge under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 477-A, I.P.C. was directed to be framed against each of them. There are two other accused, namely, Jagdish Lal Chanana and Harish Chander Kapur. They have however, not chosen to assail, the Mid order under which the former has also been directed to be charged under those provisions of law and the latter under Section 420, I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 9-7-1979 Tasawar Hussain, a clerk of the Stores (Accounts) Department, Central Cottage Industries Emporium sent his helper Ganga Ram to bring the sale statement book from Jagdish Lal Chanana. The latter, however, happened to be on leave, and as such Ganga Ram searched his cabin and found the sale statement book which he took to Mr. Hussain. It was then notice...
Fit Tight Nuts and Bolts Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT717TriDel
1. These three appeals arise out of the Order-in-Revision No. 23-R/84, dated 16-4-1984 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 35A, Central Excises and Salt Act. By that order, the Board set aside the Order-in-Original No. V. 52(30) 3/74-CXI, dated 7/10-11-1975 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bhavnagar, in which he had held that the hub-bolts manufactured by the appellants were not excisable under item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Board further set aside three refund orders, all dated 3-3-1976, passed by the said Assistant Collector in pursuance of his first order, and pertaining to duty paid during different periods.2. At the start of the hearing, the Bench pointed out to Shri Jhunjhunwala, the learned Advocate for the appellants, that since there were in effect four orders of the Board, there should have been four (and not three) appeals to the Tribunal. Shri Jhunjhunwala undertook to file one more appeal, but requested that in ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Lt. Col. G.R. Chopra
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD662(Delhi)
1. This appeal is by the revenue. The assessee to the appeal is Lt.Col. G.R. Chopra (retd.) of Agra, an individual. The year of assessment involved is 1978-79, for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1978.2. Against the pension received by the assessee of Rs. 7,320, he had claimed standard deduction under section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), of Rs. 1,464. The said claim of the assessee was negatived by the ITO on the ground that standard deduction under section 16(i) was not a permissible deduction against the pension amount added to the total income of the assessee.3. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee brought the matter by way of appeal before the AAC, who has accepted the claim of the assessee for standard deduction under section 16(i) against the pension amount received by him (the assessee) by observing as under : Section 16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stands after the amendment by the Finance Act, 1974, with effect from 1974-75, deals solel...
The Nilgiri Tea Emporium and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ142
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against order dated 6th July 1984 of a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby he proceeded to framed charge against the petitioners under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The facts germane to the decision of this revision petition succinctly are that on I 2th February 1982, Food Inspector Shri P.N. Khatri purchased a sample of 'Lamsa' chocolate tea from the shop of M/s. Kallu Mal Suraj Bhan, Khari Baoli, Delhi for analysis in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. The second part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who, vide his report dated 16th March 1982, found that it was a case of misbranding for not using proper label. While observing that from physical appearance the sample was of tea having added flavour of chocolate and prepared tea also gave taste and flavour of chocolate, he remarked: 'NO standard of chocola...
R.N. Mathur Vs. Pratap Pawar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT172
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) The appellant R.N. Mathur took on rent under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act the premises flat No. D-II/B, D.D.A. flats, Munirka, New Delhi, belonging to Shri Pratap Pawar for residential purposes for a period of two years commencing from 22nd July 1978. The ground stated in the application for permission to create tenancy for a fixed period was that the landlord is on a foreign assignment/and posted as Cultural Officer, High Commission of India, Port of Spain, Trinidad, and Tabago, West Indies, and was expected to return to India on the expiry of his assignment after a period of two years and he would thereafter require the premises for his personal residence. The said application was made on behalf of the landlord by his attorney Miss Raj (2) On 26th August 1980 the landlord through his attorney filed an application for warrants for possession of the flat No. D-II/B D.D.A. flats. It was stated in the application that although the period of two years had...
Suraj Mal and ors. Vs. Babu Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi95; ILR1985Delhi508
G.C. Jain, J. (1) The parties to this appeal are Jains of Oswal sect resident in Delhi. Lotan Mal, the common ancestor died on November, 3, 1928 leaving behind a widow LadBai, two sons Kastur Chand and Suraj Mal, and two daughters.Kastur Chand was married to Tara Bai (respondent No. 2).Soon after his marriage he died on 23/03/1936 without leaving any issue. His widow adopted Babu Lal (respondent No. 1) as a son ott 3/02/1949.(2) On 21/05/1949 Suraj Mal brought a suit against his mother Lad Bai, Tara Bai and Babu Lal claiming l/3rd share in the joint family property by partition. According to the averments in the plaint he. Lad Bai, and Tara Bai had 1/3rd share each in the joint family properties in suit He denied the adoption of BabuLal but imp leaded him as a party for getting all the disputes settled. Lad Bai in her written statement disputed the factum as well as validity or the adoption. She.however, had no objection to the partition. Tara Bai alleged that her signatures on the ado...
Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC546Tri(Delhi)
1. Originally preferred as an appeal before the Central Board of Excise & Customs against the order dated 3-2-1977 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, on transfer to this Tribunal, the matter is being treated as if the matter were an appeal before the Tribunal, and is being disposed of as such.2. Vide his impugned order dated 3-2-1977, the learned Collector held that the assessable value for the refrigerant gases, manufactured by M/s. Navin Fluorine Industries (hereinafter referred to as NFI) to M/s.Hoechst Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hoechest) were to be treated as sales to a related person within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and accordingly, the assessable value should be determined with reference to the prices charged by Hoechest to its wholesale buyers and not at the prices at which NFI sold the said goods to Hoechest.3. The case agai...
Union of India Vs. Bhatia Tanning Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi195; 27(1985)DLT97; 1985RLR105
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The short question in this appeal is whether the arbitrator was guilty of misconducting the proceedings because he resorted to the method of publication in the newspaper for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Bhatia Tanning Industries, for the hearing of the case. (2) These are the facts. An agreement was entered into between the appellant. Director General of Supplies and Disposals and the respondent Bhatia Tanning Industries (the Industries) on 1-11-1974. The Industries were to supply certain material to the Director-General. The case of the Director General was that the Industries had committed default in making the supplies. So he raised a claim against the Industries on account of risk purchase. The agreement provided for arbitration. According to the terms of the arbitration clause the disputes between the parties were to be referred by the Director General to a sole arbitrator named by him. The Director-General appointed an arbitrator...
Snehiata Seth Vs. Kewal Krishan Seth
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi162; 27(1985)DLT449; 1985(8)DRJ107; 1985RLR75
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) This appeal has been moved by Sneh Lala Seth against the decree of divorce passed against her and in favor of her husband Kewal Kishan Seth on 7-1-1983 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by Sh. R.D. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi. (2) Kewal Kishan had sought divorce on two grounds. One was of cruelty and the other desertion. So far as the former ground, the learned trial court negatived the same, but allowed divorce after holding that Sneh Lata had, in fact, deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of over two years. (3) The parties were married on 8-9-1973. It was an arranged marriage. Both have been working. The wife has been employed as a teacher in a school. While the husband is a bank employee and is at present holding the post of Assistant Manager, drawing over Rs. 3000.00 per month. A son was born out of wedlock on 18-1-1975, Sneh Lata left the matrimonial home on the evening of 31-7-75 and ever since then the parties have not lived...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »