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.
Raghbir Singh Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi228; ILR1985Delhi774
Avadh Behari, J.(1) For the first time in these two appeals we are called upon to interpret the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984.(2) These are the facts. The land of the appellants situated in village Dhaka was compulsorily acquired by the respondent,Union of India. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act) was issued on 13-11-59. In due course the Collector made the award (Award No. 1557). On a reference under section 18 of the Act the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation in this manner : For block A land .he raised the compensation fromRs. 4,500 per bigha as determined by the Collector to Rs. 8,000 per bigha. FOR block B land he enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3,200 to Rs. 6,000 per bigha. AS regards block C land the compensation was increased from 2,500 to Rs. 4,000 per bigha. THERE was one Khasra No. 61315721206 which was in block C. For that he did not make any enhancement. He retained the valuation of the Coll...
Associated Stone Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC530Tri(Delhi)
1. Originally preferred as a Revision Application before the Central Government, now on transfer to this Tribunal, the matter is being treated as an appeal by us.2. The appeal is directed against order-in-Appeal bearing C. No.137-C.E./APPL/JPR/79, dated 2-5-1981 (Order-in-Appeal No. 9/JPR/C.E./81 dated 2-5-1981).3. At the outset, the learned J.D.R. pointed out that in pursuance of the Appellate Collector's order dated 2-5-1981, the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Division, Kota has passed an order dated 31-7-1981.This order bore No. C. No. V(68) 3/7/C.E. 11/79/6087-88 dated 31-7-1981. The appellants preferred another appeal against the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kota's order dated 31-7-1931.This appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi vide his order C. No. 292-C.E./APPL/ JPR/81 dated 22-6-1982 bearing Order-in-Appeal No. 63/JPR/82. The learned JDR submits that with the passing of the Appellate Collector's Order dated 22-6-1982, th...
A.P. Jaiswal Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD703(Delhi)
1. The interesting question involved in this appeal, filed by the assessee, is whether the transfer of 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each of Jagatjit Industries Ltd. made by the assessee to Miss Gayatri Malhotra on 18-7-1980 was treatable as a gift within the meaning of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act').2. For the assessment year 1981-82 in question, originally, the assessee filed a return on 27-1-1981, declaring a gift of Rs. 5,87,500.Later on, he filed a revised return declaring a nil gift. However, the GTO treated the transfer as a gift and assessed the assessee accordingly.3. In appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no adequate consideration measurable in terms of money's worth. He did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the assessee that there was a marriage agreement or ante-nuptial agreement and that the transfer of shares was by way of consideration of the promise by the lady to marry the assessee.4. The assessee, being ag...
Ajanta Iron and Steel Company Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: 1986(23)ELT318(Del)
D.K. Kanpur, J.1. This Writ Petition seeks to challenge the show cause notice dated 6-4-1984 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, M.O.D. IV, Nizamuddin West, Delhi. This notice calls upon the petitioner to show cause why the classification lists effective from 1-4-82, 1-3-83 and 1-4-83 in respect of Railway Track Materials, specified in the notice be not approved. 2. A show cause notice was issued and replies have been filed. As a very short point is involved, we issue Rule D.B. and proceed to decide the petition. 3. The petitioner had filed classification lists before two separate Assistant Collectors of Central Excise. The items of Railway Track Material in dispute, Tie Bars, Cottors and Two Way Keys and Steel Loose Jaws were the subject matter on order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi on 20th July, 1983. This order shows that the dispute was whether these items had to be included in tariff item 26AA or under item 68. The Assistant Collec...
Balwant Singh Bawa Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: (1986)15ITD172(Delhi)
1. Even though in this appeal by the assessee there are several grounds raised which are unnecessarily full of arguments and narrative, the contention raised therein is only one and that is that the loss which had been suffered by the assessee between 1-4-1977 to 22-9-1977 during which an agreement dated 1-4-1977 between the assessee and his brother namely Shri Gurbachan Singh Bawa, was operative was a loss suffered in the sole proprietary business of the assessee which ought to have been determined as such and carried forward to be set off against the future income of the assessee. According to the appellant the agreement dated 1-4-1977 between him and his brother had brought about a relationship of an employer and an employee or principal and an agent and, therefore, the ITO and for that matter the Commissioner (Appeals) had no justification in holding that there was a joint venture or an AOP which had come into existence as a result of the agreement dated 1-4-1977.2. Before we adju...
Harish Chander Vs. Krishan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi70; 1985RLR70
D.R. Khanana, J.(1) This Civil Revision has arisen out of an order dated 8.12.77 of Sub Judge whereby it was held that the agreed rent of Rs. 30.00 p.m. for the premises in dispute included electric charges as well. (2) So far as the status of Krishan Kumar as tenant under Harish Chander, plaintiff in the premises in dispute, the same is admitted. So also the rate of rent. The tenant has, however, asserted that the agreed rent of Rs. 30 p.m. includes electric charges for the electricity which he consumes in the demised premises. This is refuted by the land-lord, and hence this litigation up to this Court. (3) It may be relevant to mention that earlier the learned Sub Judge came to the same view that the rent included electric charges. This was in the judgment dated 21.10.1975 when the landlord's suit for the recovery of Rs. 1080.00 towards arrears of rent from 1.12.1971 to 30.11.1974 was decreed. During the course of that judgment the observation was made that the rent of Rs. 30 p.m. i...
Om Perkash Goda Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1984
Reported in: 1985RLR121
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) Objections, and if owner appeals to Distt. Judge, he cannot summarily reject by saying that appellant had not cleared his House Tax dues. Properties bearing Nos. 3642 to 3654 were acquired by late Bashesher Nath, predecessor of the present appellant during his life time at different stages. After his death in 1945, his sons and widow treated these properties as belonging to their joint Hindu family. According to the appellant there was a family settlement with regard to property No. 3643 in terms of which Basheshar Nath's widow Smt. Manno Devi was given a particular portion of this property abutting gali Batlan, and the other fell to the lot of the eldest son Om Prakash Goela who happened to be 'karta' of the family. That took place in Oct., 1970. Intimation of this family settlement was said to have been given to the Municipal Corporation. (2) Subsequently there was stated to be another oral partition of the properties No. 3642 and 3644 to 3654 between the appellant...
Surender Kaur and ors. Vs. Dhram Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1984
Reported in: I(1985)ACC240; [1986]60CompCas1049(Delhi); 1985(9)DRJ154
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) It is indeed unfortunate that this First Appeal against the rejection of the claim of the legal representatives of Gurdev Singh, deceased, who was killed on the evening of 20-4-1967 at Rohtak Road, Delhi, as a result of an accident caused by car No. DLJ-6212, is coming up for hearing after 17' years of the incident, and the discussion as hereinafter will show, the legal representatives were denied their substantial legitimate compensation by unwarranted, unsustainable and a sort of wooden approach adopted by Shri P.S. Shukia, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. (2) The legal representatives had sought compensation of Rs. 80,000.00 (3) Gurdev Singh was fun over at about 5.30 P.M. on 20.4.67 in front of Anup Service Station, Rohtak Road, Delhi when he was going on a cycle from his office to his home. Car bearing No.DLJ 6212 driven' by Dharam Singh, respondent came,from the opposite direction,, and went to the wrong side of the road and knocked him down. At that. time he w...
Allied Engineers Vs. Harbaksh Gill
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ151; 1985RLR128
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 1984 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 6th March, 1984 of the Additional Rent Controller directing the tenant appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 2362.50 as rent for the period ending 31st December, 1982 and arrears at Rs. 2887.50 per month from 1st January, 1983 onwards in accordance with Section- 15(1) of the Act. (2) The facts are that the respondent-landlady let out flat No. 13, 2nd floor, 'New Delhi House' 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi to the appellant for running an office with effect from 20th March; 1976 in terms of a lease deed dated 18th March, 1976 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2625.00 . The. initial period of lease was three years. It was renewed by mutual consent of the parties as per Clause 2, Part Iii of the said lease deed enhancing the rent by 10 per cent of the last paid rent. The mon...
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Sun Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC677Tri(Delhi)
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as are apparent on record are that the Respondents arc the manufacturers of different varieties of paper. On 12.5.1980, they filed a classification list regarding one of their products 'Violetwove 35 GSM to 44 GSM' showing it to be under Tariff Item No. 17(1) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 attracting duty @ 25% ad valorem, That classification list was approved by the Central Excise authorities on 22.5.1980 without any change. Subsequently, on verification, it was found that the paper in question, namely, 'Violetwove 35 GSM to 44 GSM' was used for the purpose other than the one declared by the Respondents and, therefore, Show Cause Notice was issued to the Respondents on 20.11 1980 directing the Respondents to show cause why the paper in question should not be classified under Tariff Item No. 17(2)-CET and why a differential duty for the clearances from 22.5.1980 should not be realized from them. A corrigendum t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›