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.
S.D. Sharma Vs. Trade Fair Authority of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ193Del; 1985(1)SLJ160(Delhi)
Sachar, J. (1) This writ petition was beard together with others and they will be disposed of by this common judgment as the counsel agreed that the decision in this. writ petition will govern the decision in other petitions. (2) This writ petition challenges the order of removal of 7-4-1981 as up-held in appeal by the order of the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 Trade Fair Authority as per his order dated 15-7-1981 by which the petitioner has been removed from service. The charge sheet was served on the 'petitioner on 17-2-1981 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rules 27 and 28 of the Trade Fair Authority of India Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter to be known as 'Conduct Rules'). The charge reads as under ; THATa demonstration was held on 3rd February, 1981 by some of the Employees of the Trade Fair Authority of India in office premises in which inflammatory speeches were made and defamatory slogans were shouted. Chairman and some o...
Sequoia Construction Co. and ors. Vs. P.P. Suri (income Tax Officer)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Del)277; ILR1985Delhi569
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) These three criminal petitions have been moved against similar orders. dated 28/02/1984 of Additional Chief Metropolitan .Magistrate whereby the application of the petitioners in each of the three cases pending against them for quashing of prosecution proceedings wasrejected.(2) Briefly staled the allegations against the petitioners as per complaints filed against them by Mr. P. P. Suri, Income-tax. Officer, Control Circle Xx, New Delhi are that the petitioner No. 1 which is a private limited company paid interest to 8 parties who had effected deposits with the company or were its creditors While doing so. income-tax deductions were made by the petitioner No. 1 from the amount of interest paid to them. In other words, income-tax was. deducted at source by this petitioner on interest payments effected. Under the law the deductions so made should have been deposited with the Central Government within one week of the payments. However, this was not done and the deposits...
Sequoia Construction Co. P. Ltd. and Others Vs. P. P. Suri, Ito, Centr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1984
Reported in: (1986)47CTR(Del)277; [1986]158ITR496(Delhi)
D. R. KHANNA J. - These three criminal petitions have been moved against similar orders dated February 28, 1984, of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the application of the petitioners in each of the three cases pending against them for quashing of prosecution prodding's was rejected.Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioners as per complaints filed against them by Mr. P. P. Suri, Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XX, New Delhi, are that petitioner No. 1, which is a private limited company, paid interest to eight parties who had effected deposits with the company or were its creditors. While doing so, Income-tax deductions were made by petitioner No. 1 from the amount of interest paid to them. In other words, income-tax was deducted at source by this petitioner on interest payments effected. Under the law, the deductions so made should have been deposited with the Central Government within one week of the payments. However, this was not done and the dep...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Razia Begum
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD677(Delhi)
1. By this reference application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), the Commissioner has required the Tribunal to refer the following question as a question of law, which is stated to arise out of the order of the Tribunal in WT Appeal No. 552 (Delhi) of 1982 relating to the assessment year 1976-77 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to recalculate the value of property at Marina Hotel', New Delhi, in accordance with Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, by holding that though this rule came into existence on 1-4-1979 yet it has retrospective effect.2. At the time of the hearing of the reference application by the Division Bench, it was found that whereas in a large number of cases references have been made on similar question for the opinion of the Hon'ble High Court, a few Benches of the Tribunal have taken the view that no referable question of law arises on the above matt...
international Computers Indian Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC567Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of office machines, computers, etc. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune, passed an order on 15-2-84 on the price |list approving the same with certain modifications, As a result of the same, differential duty became payable by the appellants. Aggrieved from this order, the appellants filed an appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.Before the said Collector, an application for the stay of the recovery of the disputed amount was also made. That application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21-7-1984. Against this order, the present appeal has been preferred.2. Shri Mahesh Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, appearing on behalf of the respondent, raised a preliminary objection that no appeal against the order of dismissal of the stay application was maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied on an order of this Tribunal bearing No. 371/84-D passed on 2-7-84 in Appeal No...
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1984
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2054Tri(Delhi)
1. By his order C. No. V/17/30/22/82, dated 10-8-1983, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Erode Division has disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 in respect of the following products claimed by the appellant as used in the manufacture of paper : 1. Alum 2. Sodium sulphide lye 3. Sodium sulphate 4. Daicol (Gaur gums) 5. Fluo solid lime.In doing so, he found that for being entitled to the benefit of the said notification, the items should find a place in the final product.When the matter was taken up in appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, following the ratio of the decisions in earlier orders, decided that the chemicals referred to by the appellants cannot be considered as raw meterials of paper or paper boards (He even doubted whether resin which was allowed by the Assistant Collector could be considered as raw material but did not interfere with that part of the order) vide his order C No. V/17/71/83, dated 27-12-1983.2. The representative o...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kiran X-ray Screens Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1984
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT264TriDel
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are apparent on record that the Respondents imported 200 kgs. Calcium Tungstate and the goods were assessed to duty under Chapter 32.04/12(1) of CTA and Countervailing duty was charged under Item 68 of Central Excise. The assessee filed the refund claim alleging that the assessment should be under Chapter 28.01/58 but the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund Department) rejected the claim of the assessee as unsubstantiated. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay decided the case ordering classification under Chapter 28.01/58 CTA.2. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, the Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was received in the Office on 19-7-1984. In this apppeal an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. The reasons mentioned for condonation of delay are that the Appellate's i.e.Collector of Customs (Appeals) Order is not correct in law and on fact...
Kailash Chandra Gupta Vs. Chaman Lal Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes935; 27(1985)DLT185
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) This petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the setting aside of orders (Judgments) of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 12-11-1982 and the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 27-1-1983 by which orders both the courts below had directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 450.00 to each of the respondents I and 2 from the date of the application. (2) The case of the respondents was that the petitioner is their son and they are father and mother respectively of the petitioner Kailash Chandra Gupta, that such circumstances were created as to force them out of the house of the petitioner and they were as such forced to take refuge with their daughter in the house of their son-in-law, that they were unable to maintain themselves and in this manner the petitioner has neglected to maintain them even though he was obliged to do so under section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court of the first instance after receiving objectio...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Leatherite Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1984
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT590TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi for restoration of Appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, by Order No.C237/84-C passed by this Bench of the Tribunal on 30-4-1984.2. The facts giving rise to this application are that a Show Cause Notice bearing F. No. 198/8/178/78-CX. V, dated 27-11-1978 was issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 seeking to review the Order in Appeal No. 2386-CE dated 13-12-1977 passed by the Central Collector of Excise, New Delhi. The review proceedings before the Government of India were transferred to this Tribunal after coming into existence the Tribunal on 11-10-1982 and was treated as an Appeal before the Tribunal.3. This Bench of the Tribunal before whom the Appeal came up for hearing found that the Appellant, i.e. the Collector of Excise, Chandigarh, did not comply with the directions given to him to furnish 4 sets of relev...
Bengal Saws and Steel Products Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1984
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas120(Delhi); ILR1985Delhi584
Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner, Bengal Saws & Steel Products Ltd., is a private limited company manufacturing 'safety razor blade strips'. The petitioner company has an industrial license for the manufacture of safety razor blade strips - 1,080 tonnes per annum. The petitioner company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harbans Lal Malhotra and Sons Ltd. (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called 'the HLM'). The said HLM manufacturers razor blades. The said HLM has an industrial license to manufacture razor blades, 1,500 million on number. The petitioner company is manufacturing safety razor blade strips from carbon steel. The petitioner company has a proposal to manufacture stainless steel razor blade strips in place of carbon steel razor blade strips within the existing licensed capacity. HLM is registered under section 26 read with section 20(b)(i) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, as a single dominant undertaking in respect of razor blades. 2. The crucial que...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »