Delhi Court December 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.
Virewder Kumar Bhatnagar Vs. Chitranjan Kumar Mal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT393
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 26th February, 1983 whereby the learned Rent Control Tribunal affirmed the order of the Vth Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissing the objections filed by the appellant/tenant to the application under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for delivery of possession. (2) The premises in dispute namely C-2/274, Vivek Vibar, New Delhi, were let out by the respondent to Sb. Virender Kumar Bhatnagar for residential purposes for a period of two years under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act by an order of the Court dated 29th April, 1978. This order of the Court passed on an agreement between the parties dated 25th April, 1978. The application for permission to let for residence of the aforesaid premises for two years was filed on 28th April, 1978 and the statement of the parties were recorded by the learned Additional ...
Cyanamib India Limited and anr. Vs. R.N. Was and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi179; ILR1985Delhi704
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this and the connected writ petitions is to the fixation of maximum sale price of the bulk drugs and of the retail prices of formulation, which prices of the have been fixed from time to time, under the provisions of the Drugs Prices (Display and Control.) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as Dpco of 1979').(2) Though a number of writ petitions were heard together,the main arguments were addressed by the counsel in Civil WritNo. 820 of 1981 (Cyanamid India Limited v. Sh. R.N.Das),hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners'. The contentions raised are common to all the other writ petitions except that in some cases additional points have been taken which will be dealt withseparately. It is, thereforee, necessary to set-out the relevant facts in Cyanamid's case in some detail.(3) Before 1962 there was no statutory control on the prices of drugs. For the first time control was brought about when drugs (Control of Prices) Order, 1963 was promulgated...
P.K. Hsmatsingka and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1984
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT714TriDel
1. This is an Application for clarification of our Order dated 14-8-1984, requiring the Appellant in Appeal No. 67/82, to file as many Appeals in the Tribunal "as there are Orders-in-Original". (a) the Appellant preferred five claims of refund alleged to arise consequent upon assessment of the goods imported under three different Bills of Entry of diverse dates between 18-5-1979 and 1-6-1979; (b) the claims were adjudicated upon and rejected mostly as time-barred in five different Orders-in-Original (S/8-704/80R and four others) on or about 18-1-1980; (c) in Appeals, the Appellate Collector directed the Assistant Collector to adjudicate the claims on merits (Order No. S/49-201 & 203/80R, dated 26-2-1980); (d) the Appellant resubmitted all the five claims to the Assistant Collector; they were once again rejected on the ground that the discounts were of a special nature and not admissible; (e) in Appeals, the aforesaid Orders were set aside and the Appellant once again "approached t...
Pandora (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT469TriDel
1. As all these four appeals involve common questions of law and facts they were taken up together. Originally filed as Revision Applications before the Government, on transfer are being treated as appeals.2. The appellants are manufacturers of evaporative type of coolers. The coolers manufactured by them are supplied on rate contract basis to DGS&D, New Delhi. The appellants quoted the prices of coolers of various models and also quoted price for extra water tank. The controversy in these proceedings arose from two show cause notices issued to the appellants. A show cause notice was issued on 6-9-74 demanding differential duty of Rs. 6,110/- relating to the clearances between April 1973 to March 1974. The second show cause notice was issued on 9-1-75 demanding differential duty of Rs. 8,808.90 from January 1972 to March 1973 and April 1974 to December 1974. The appellants contended that the prices quoted were accepted separately for the cooler and the extra water tank. In the ini...
Bhai Mohan Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD495(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee, Bhai Mohan Singh, objecting to the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 1,20,670 in his total income. This inclusion has a long history behind it and unless we refer to it, appreciation of the contentions raised both for and against the inclusion will become obscure.2. The assessee, Bhai Mohan Singh, is the son of Bhai Gian Chand, who died on 18-8-1954. Bhai Gian Chand and Bhai Sunder Das were brothers and sons of Bhai Hans Raj. Bhai Sunder Das died on 27-10-1963, leaving behind him five sons and a daughter. Bhai Mohan Singh is the only son of his father, Bhai Gian Chand. He has three sons but no daughter.3. Bhai Gian Chand and Bhai Sunder Das, the father and uncle of the assessee Bhai Mohan Singh, carried on extensive construction business in Rawalpindi Division of the undivided India. They joined in business sometime in 1922. The business ran into several crores. Bhai Gian Chand and Bhai Sunder Das came to India sometime in 1946. Sometime in March 19...
Sobha Bhanot Vs. Ranbir Bhanot
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: 1986RLR37
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) Mrs. Bhanot has, of course, also denied that she ever had an affair with Major Multani. She says that the whole story is a pure fabrication by the husband. 1 have earlier stated the reasons why, I think, the story is highly improbable. That view has been greatly strengthened by the impression 1 have formed of Major Multani, after observing him under examination in court. (2) It remains to consider some other reasons given by the Adj reaching a conclusion in favor of the husband. The Judge is right in thinking that on some points the wife had told lies, and there are various inconsistencies in her statements. For example, she said, she never knew any Capt. D.S. Multani. This was obviously not true, because even Capt. (now Major) Multani, who was called by her as a witness, said that they had met in Abohar. Again, in her W/s the wife had said that the husband was having illicit relations with one Mrs. Coral whom he used to bring to the house, and they would 'shut th...
Ensheel Chemical Industries and anr. Vs. Rudu Ram Tejpal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT265
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The petitioner filed a complaint for prosecuting and punishing Shri Ram Sharma, his wife, Mrs. Sudha Sharma, Shri Rodu Ram and Smt. Ram Piari (hereinafter referred to as accused Nos. I to 4) in respect of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC. According to the allegations of the petitioners, in pursuance of a conspiracy the aforesaid accused dishonestly and fraudulently induced the former to open letters of credit and pay money in respect of the import of a product known as Gamapicoline which was ultimately imported from New York, U.S.A. and received at Bombay and Calcutta ports. (2) The complaint came before Shri Jaswant Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, who on July 4, 1981 expressed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds for proceedings against all the accused under Sections 120-B and 420 Indian Penal Code and ordered the summoning of all the accused. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the accused...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Kamaljit Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ68
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a petition(2) On or about 31/08/1978, a petition for divorce was filed by the husband-petitioner against the wife-respondent in the court of DistrictJudge, Delhi.(3) Case of the petitioner was that the wife had left the matrimonialhome in November/December, 1967 and since then the parties have not lived and co-habited as husband and wife and on other grounds. A written statement was filed on beha of the wife on 2/11/1978. The grounds of desertion and cruelty were denied and the plea of the wife was that the parties had co-habited till 18/08/1984. A replication was filed to the written statement on or about 12/01/1979.(4) On 2/11/1978, the respondent-wife filed an application before the trial court during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings claiming a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 per mensem as alimony pending the disposal of petition for divorce and a sum of Rs. 20,000.00for meeting the expenses of proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. (her...
Collector of Customs Vs. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC588Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arose from a notice F. No. 38O/25/8O-Cus. II issued in August 80 (no date) under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Government of India asking M/s. Swastik Rubber Products Limited, Pune, why the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay No.S/49-1035/79 R dated 3-10-79 should not be reviewed and set aside as it thought that it (order) was improper, incorrect and illegal.2. In his order of 3-10-79, the Appellate Collector ruled that Hycar 4021 imported by M/s. Swastik Rubber Products and described in the bill of entry as a polyacrylic synthetic rubber was a synthetic rubber assessable under heading 40.01/04 of the Customs Tariff and not under heading 39.01/06 as assessed by the Assistant Collector.3. The learned counsel for the department Mr. A.S. Sundar Rajan, argued that the Appellate Collector was mistaken to hold that Hycar 4021 was assessable under heading 40.01/04 merely because the invoice read 'synthetic rubber, (polyacrylic type) Hycar 4021,...
Subash Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC682Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in these 9 appeals is common, they arise out of one consolidated Order-in-Appeal and related to the same appellants.They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of through this combined order.2. The main Appeal No. 805/79-D was dismissed for default by the North Regional Bench on 16-5-1983. No order restoring this appeal is on record. However, the proceedings show that thereafter the appeal was transferred to Special Bench 'D' and it was taken up on merits by the said Special Bench on 17-8-1983. The Department's Representative stated that in view of these proceedings he would not object to the appeal being considered as restored. The Bench agreed with him and held that the appeal should be deemed as having been restored. Hearing of the appeals on merits proceeded thereafter. 2A. The facts in brief are that the appellants exported Terry Wool Rumals to Saudi Arabia under claim for Drawback in respect of the following 3 ingredients of the goods : 3. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »