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.
Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, N ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Del)13; [1986]158ITR188(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The applicant originally instituted one reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. In these three years, there were three appeals by the assessed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and also three appeals by the Department, which were all decided by one order dated April 29, 1975. The departmental appeals were dismissed and the assessed's appeals were allowed in part. Thereafter, the assessed filed three applications under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for these assessment years and all these applications were decided by one composite order dated June 8, 1978. The assessed filed only one reference application. There were some office objections which led to the return of the case; after rectification of the same, the case came before a Bench of this court on January 16, 1980, for admission purposes. The Bench passed an order stating that separate income-tax cases...
Krishna Sobti Vs. Amrita Pritam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT279
H.C. Goel, J. (1) By this order I shall dispose of application of Mrs. Krishna Sobti plaintiff/applicant under Order 39 Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of ad interim injunction against the defendants directing them to delete the word 'Zindginama' from the title of the book 'Hardutt Ka Zindginama' written by defendant No. I and published by defendants No. 2 to 4 in different languages and restraining the defendants from publishing, advertising, marketing or selling the book 'Hardutt Ka Zindginama' or from passing off that book as the book 'Zindginama' written by the plaintiff. The plaintiff Mrs. Krishna Sobti is a well-known Hindi writer and has published a number of literary works to her credit. Her novel 'Zindginama' was published in the year 1979 whereof the plaintiff has the copyright. This work of the plaintiff received acclamation in the literary circles and the reading public. The book 'Zindginama' got the Sahitya Academy Award for Hindi literary work i...
Collector of Customs Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC363Tri(Delhi)
1. The present matter arose out of a show cause notice issued under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Central Government to the two afore-noted Respondents, seeking to set aside Orders-in-Appeal Nos. S/49-404/80R and S/49-431/80R, dated 23-4-1980 and S/49-958/80R, dated 30-6-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.On the setting up of this Tribunal, it was transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Bhor Industries imported certain consignments of a polymeric plasticizer of the trade name "Sanficizer 429". Fibre-Glass Pilkington imported another polymeric plasticizer of the trade name "Reoplex 400". The Customs authorities at the port of Bombay assessed both the goods to basic duty of Customs under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (Customs Tariff, for short) and to ad...
Hatim Dielectrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT621TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, 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 case is with regard to the correct classification under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (GET, for short), of a product called "Epoxy Glass Textolite Sheets" manufactured by the appellants. The goods comprise of resin and mineral fibres. On 20-2-1978, the appellants submitted a claim before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta for a sum of Rs. 1,17,675.01 on the ground that, though duty had been paid on the said goods under Item No. 15A(2) GET, the goods were correctly assessable to duty under Item No. 22F CET. In his order dated 15-12-1978, the Assistant Collector stated that since the goods were articles of glass fibre reinforced plastics, c...
M.S. Kuanna and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi262; ILR1985Delhi597
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) He petitioner M. S. Khanna Associates (P) Limited, Contractors, F-22, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi has put up this petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940(hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for the removal of MrA. S. Khullar, respondent No. 2, as Arbitrator who entered upon.the reference on 21-4-1981 to resolve the disputes and differences which had arisen between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent No. 1. New Delhi Municipal Committee on the other and for appointing another arbitrator in his place. The arbitration clause No. 25 appearing in the contract, between the parties was invoiced by the petitioner as early as 14-1-1980 and in pursuance thereof the Administrator of respondent No. 1 N.D.M.C.appointed Mr. A. K. Guha as Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties vide letter dated 24-9-1980 butMr. Guha resigned as an Arbitrator subsequently without taking up the matter and thereafter the Administra...
Sandersons Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT156
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court dated December 12,1974 whereby the learned Single Judge modified the decree passed by the learned first appellate court dated 19th October, 1972. While allowing the appeal partly, the learned Single Judge modified the decree of the lower appellate Court to the extent that the respondent/committee was restrained from recovering the license fee from the plaintiff/firm for the period from 5th February, 1969 to 9th May, 1969 in relation to shop No : 98, Jaswant Place, Chankaya Puri, New Delhi. (2) The plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit against the respondent/ committee for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent/committee from Realizing license fee in relation to the aforesaid shop and also from revoking the license in relation to the said shop. (3) The respondent/committees had invited tenders for allotment of certain shops in Jaswant P...
B.K. Engineering Co. Vs. Ubhi Enterprises (Registered) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi210; 27(1985)DLT120
Avadh Behari, J. (1) 'IN the interests of fair trying and in the interests of all who may wish to buy and sell goods. the law recognises that certain limitations upon freedom of action are necessary and desirable. In some situations the law has had to resolve what might at first appear to be conflicts between competing rights. In solving the problems which have arisen there has been no need to resort to any abstruse principles but rather, I think, to the straightforward principle that trading must not only be honest but must not even unintentionally be unfair'. [Parker Knoll Ltd. v. Knoll International Ltd. Lord Morris). (2) I preface my judgment with this statement of the law The reason is that it contains a complete answer to the question raised in this appeal. (3) The plaintiffs, the present appellants, B. K. Engineer ing Co. of Delhi, have brought a passing-off action against the defendants, the present respondents, Ubhi Enterprises of Ludhiana. The plaintiffs claim permanent injun...
Laxman Singh Vs. Jai Parkash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes918; 27(1985)DLT161
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This criminal revision has been moved by Laxman Singh against the acquittal of five respondents by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in the case registered under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code . resulting from the murder of his brother Ram Chander. According to him, the trial court entirely misdirected itself, laid emphasis of irrelevancies while material circumstances were ignored, and the conclusions arrived at were also perverse. It is pointed out that although the respondents admitted that they were involved in the incident leading to the .death of Ram Chander, and pleaded that they acted in the right of self-defense, still the court did not give a finding of guilt when five persons assaulting a single person could not by any stretch be treated as exercising their right of self-defense. (2) The state was earlier moved to file an appeal, but it declined to do so. (3) Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on the mid-night of 3rd and 4th June, 1...
R.P. Bajaj and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes952; 1985(8)DRJ139
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The petitioners R.P. Bajaj and M/s.Sawan Paints were convicted by a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi of an offence punishable under Section 29(2) read with section 14 of the Delhi Development Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 . It was directed that in default of payment of fine, R.P. Bajaj shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both went in appeal which was dismissed on September 24, 1979 by Sh. R.D. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The present petition is directed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence. (2) On 26th June 1976 Shri S.K. Taneia, (Public Witness 2) Junior Engineer of Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA) inspected a vacant plot of land measuring 500 sq. yards bearing No. 13, Kaushalya Park, opposite G. Block Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He found that the aforesaid plot was being used for storage of sanitary and hardware goods. O.I inquiry, he came to kno...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ampro Food Products and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC373Tri(Delhi)
1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in Appeals Nos.422/79-A and 421/79-A, they will be disposed of by this common order.2. In both these cases, proceedings under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act as it existed at the relevant time were initiated.A notice was issued under the said Section to M/s. Ampro Food Products on 21 9-1979 and to M/s. Jivan Food Products on 4-1-1980. M/s. Ampro Food Products replied to the notice on 16-11-1979 and M/s. Jivan Food Products on 8-2-1980. Both these matters are now being dealt with by us as appeals preferred by the Department in terms of Section 35 P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.3. The brief facts leading to the said notices are that M/s. Jivan Food Products, respondent in Appeal No. 421/79-A filed nine price lists during the year 1978-79 on different days before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad, claiming deduction of what they said to be secondary packing expenses from the assessable value...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »