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.
D.S. Dalal Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: 1984(8)DRJ156
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) The case of the petitioner, at the time when notice to show cause was issued, was that he had never appeared for Singh & Co. in the High Court and as such was not concerned in the High Court matters. This statement was not accepted by the counsel, for the respondent In fact, Mr. Vohra stated that if it can be shown even in one case that the petitioner bad appeared in this Court, the petitioner will be out of court. The respondent lies filed an affidavit. Along with the affidavit various orders of this court have also been filed. I find that the petitioner had not only signed the pleadings and Vakalatnama but has appeared on various' dates in different suits of the plaintiff itself.(2) The complaint, by the counsel, for the petitioner is that his criminal trial may be prejudiced if he is examined under Order 10 Rule 1. This submission is also not tenatle, for the simple reason that the petitioner has already disclosed his defense in a written statement filed before....
Sanative Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1791Tri(Delhi)
1. Originally preferred as a revision application before the Central Government, on transfer to this Tribunal, the matter is being treated as an appeal as provided in Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act). The present appeal is directed against the order dated 29-12-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter to be referred to as Board).2. By the impugned order, the Central Board of Excise and Customs rejected the appeal filed by the appellants before the said Board on the ground that the same had. been received after the expiry of statutory time limit of three ' months prescribed under Section 35 of the Act. Shri Ganesan, the learned counsel for the appellants accepted the position that the appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs was received by the said Board after the expiry of three months. The delay, according to the learned counsel, was only of one day. In this connection, Shri Ganesan ...
Sudarshan Lal Gupta Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)Crimes320; 27(1985)DLT404
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) Petitioner was convicted under Section 7(l)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and was sentenced to undergo till the rising of the court and to the payment of fine of Rs. 1500.00 in default of payment of which he was required to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months Shri J.D. Dhanoka, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi by his orders dated 22-11-1983 and 24-11-1983 (2) Aggrieved by this order the petitioner preferred an appeal No. 43 of 1983 which was heard by Shri K.B.Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi who after setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, directed the case to be remanded back to the Metropolitan Magistrate for recording fresh evidence and to ascertain the fact asto whether M/s. Kanwar Sain Coal Depot in the name of which the license No. 404 was issued was a partnership firm or whether the petitioner was its sole proprietor. This was done in pursuance of the contention of the appel...
Jaideep Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC527Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Jaideep Corporation, Hubli, against order-in-appeal No. 2354/80, dated 29-12-80 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. M/s. Jaideep Corporation manufactures sodium silicate in the factory of M/s. Shree Hubli Chemical Works, another licensee who manufactures the same commodity. M/s. Jaideep Corporation started production in the factory from January, 1980 and claimed exemption under Notification No.71/78-CE, dated 1-3-78. They also claim that they were loan licensee under the terms of Notification No. 305/77-CE, dated 5-11-77.3. The Assistant Collector gave an order dated 5-3-80 in which he said that M/s. Shree Hubli Chemical Works had already availed of the exemption under Notification No. 71/78-CE during the financial year 1979-80 and, therefore, the clearances of nil rate of duty of the goods from the same factory by M/s. Jaideep Corporation being in excess of Rs. 5 lakhs would not be permissible. The Appellate Collector agre...
Gurco Pharma P. Ltd. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas1055(Delhi)
H.L. Anand, J.1. M/s. Gurco Pharma (P.) Ltd., in liquidation, claims from its former bankers, Syndicate Bank, compensation on the allegation that before its winding up, the company had pledged medicinal goods, consisting of raw materials and finished medicines worth over Rs. 8 lakhs by way of pledge to secure advances made and/or to be made by the bank to it from time to time and that the bank failed to take reasonable care of the goods while they were in the bank's custody in that the goods, some or all of which had an expiry period, were allowed to become stale and the bank failed to dispose of the goods within the period of validity of the material with the result that the goods became worthless and had eventually to be destroyed thereby causing damage to the company. The company also sought a restraint order with regard to the destruction of the goods, a complete description and particulars of the goods from the bank, to call upon the bank to account for the pledged property and so...
Dharam Pal Bhardwaj Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ474; 27(1985)DLT233; 1985(8)DRJ145
1. Dharam Pal Bhardwaj was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, for offence under sections 170 and 474, I.P.C. He was, however, acquitted of the former charge. Conviction instead followed under S. 474, I.P.C. and the sentence awarded was two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Dharam Pal, appellant, feeling aggrieved, has now moved the present appeal before this Court. The State, however, has not come in any appeal against his acquittal under S. 170, I.P.C. although it must be said that the judgment of the learned trial Court, acquitting him on this count, does not appear to be based on sound reasoning. The evidence of two independent respectable witnesses, one of whom was the complainant in the case and is a Dentist by profession, was ignored on a minor infirmity of particular part of statement having not been stated before the police u...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-v Vs. R. Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR221(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J.1. The assessed was originally assessed for the assessment year 1953-54 on March 28, 1958. As a result of certain observations made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appellate order in respect of the assessment year 1954-55, a notice was issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the previous approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Two sums, which were treated as unexplained credits showing income from undisclosed sources, were added to the assessed's income. The first sum of Rs. 93,000 was received from M/s. Dalmia Cement and Paper Marketing Co. Ltd. and the second sum of Rs. 5,51,400 was received from M/s. R. K. Relhan & Co., Stock Brokers. The assessed's Explanationn that the first sum was received as a result of debit notes and the second sum was received as a result of the sale of the shares of the Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. was rejected. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the addition. 2. The following question has...
GurnaraIn Khanna and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]159ITR231(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J.1. These two Income-tax References (Nos. 208 and 281 of 1975), relate to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The Tribunal has stated a common case under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions referred are as follows for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 : Assessment year 1967-68 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenses of Rs. 4,190 and Rs. 710 were not allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax, 1961, as they were expenses of a capital nature Assessment year 1968-69 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenses of Rs. 10,506, Rs. 3,876 and Rs. 15,000 were not allowable as they were expenses of a capital nature ?' 2. We have on an examination of the case decided to reframe the questions in the following way so as to bring out the real point in controversy for the assessment year 19...
Puran Chand Seth Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR231(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. The assessed, in the present case, is a Hindu undivided family represented by its karta. It earns income from house property, money-lending and also from cinema exhibition business at Agra. Besides this, there was income in the assessment year 1964-65 from film distribution business. The reference to this court is in connection with expenditure amounting to Rs. 91,250 which the assessed claimed in respect of the New Taj Talkies at Agra. 2. The cinema in question is on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,750 with the assessed. The District Magistrate, Agra, had pointed out certain defects in the building which had to be removed in order to get a renewal of the cinema license. 3. In the accounting period ending March 31, 1964, an amount Rs. 91,250 was spent on repairs to sanitary fittings amounting to Rs. 6,767, repairs to auditorium Rs. 25,132, labour for repairs Rs. 7,597 and renovation account Rs. 51,754. The expenses were for providing automatic flush type latrines, shifting of...
S.K. NasiruddIn Biri Merchants Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1984
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT506TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Nasiruddin Biri Merchants Limited had warehoused tobacco on 22-1-1979 and 23-5-1978, these quantities having been originally warehoused on 2-2-1976 for a period of three years. In respect of these two items warehoused the appellants had made applications for extension of the warehousing period by one year under applications dated 22-1-1979 and 9-10-1978 respectively. But they had received two demands both dated 2-2-1979 demanding payment of duty of Rs. 2373.93 and Rs. 39132.78 respectively from the concerned Inspector.They represented to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna for withdrawal of these demands under application dated 10-5-1979 pointing out that they had already made applications for extension of warehousing period and the demands had been received even before the disposal of the said applications. They had further pointed out therein that as under the budget for 1979 the Central Excise duty on tobacco had been withdrawn no duty was also p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »