Delhi Court February 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.
Amar Nath Vs. the Management of Swatantra Bharat Mills and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT353; (1985)ILLJ39Del
Goswamy, J.(1) This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, brings to light yet another unfortunate case where the employer has been able to evade decision of the Industrial Dispute on marks for over 15 years by adopting the devices similar to those noticed by the Supreme Court in D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration an4 Others Air 1984 SC 153. (2) Amar Nath, the concerned workman was employed with Swatantra Bharat Mills for the last over 20 years on the date of the reference. The case of the management is that he was showing less efficiency during the period from 1.12.1965 to 13.12.1965. He was called by Shri S.B. Saxena, Shift in charge at about 12.45 a.m. on 14.12.1965 to explain the reasons for showing less efficiency. When asked the workman pointing out towards Mr. Mathur and Munshi Ram, who were also present, said that 'IN Salon Se PUCHHO' when he was advised by the Shift in charge to behave properly he used filthy abuses for those persons and threatened to ...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Del)216; [1985]156ITR649(Delhi)
Charanjit Talwar, J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,15,000 paid to Indian National Congress is a permissible deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessed is a limited company carrying on business in textiles and Chemicals, etc. The assessment year in question is the year 1963-64. During this years, the company paid Rs. 3,15,000 to the Indian National Congress and claimed this amount as permissible deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Its case was that the donation was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax confirmed the disallowance. Thereupon, the assessed appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal following the consistent view of various High Courts including that of this High Court was...
Sona Electric Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Del)287; [1985]152ITR507(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The following question was directed by this court to be referred to this court as per order passed in I.T.C No. 5 of 1973, dated 18th October, 1973 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 16,551 represented the assessed's income from undisclosed sources is based upon any evidence ?' 2. The facts of the case as set out in the statement of case submitted to this court can now be summarised. The assessment year was 1967-68 and the relevant previous year ended on 31st March, 1967. The assessed had supplied goods to M/s. Hind Electric Stores, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, as per Bill No. 1458, dated 6th February, 1967. These goods, were worth Rs. 16,551.09. According to the assessed, this amount was received in cash as follows : Rs. (1) On 23rd February, 1967 10,000.00 (2) On 14th March, 1967 3,000.00 (3) On 22nd March, 1967 3,551.09 3. However, the account books of M/s. Hind Electric Stores showed that the paymen...
Union of India Vs. Jaswant Rai Etc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi215; 53(1994)DLT854b; 1984RLR252
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated November 5, 1976. It was dismissed by us by a short order dated February 1, 1984. Now we proceed to give our reasons for that order. (2) Sunlight Insurance Co., Ltd., now represented by Life Insurance Corporation of India, purchased a piece of land measuring about 78,500 sq. yards abutting on the Ring Road and situate in the revenue estate of Mohd. Pur Munirka village, Tehsil and District Delhi. The said Company, it is stated, developed the said land and demarcated the same into plots of various sizes. To encourage the sale of plots, it is stated to have constructed three houses which were purchased by respondents on, hire-purchase basis. (3) On 6.11.58 a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ('the Act') was issued stating that the land mentioned therein was likely to be required to be taken by the Govt. at the 'Public expense for a public purpose, namely, for '...
Ganga Ram Dhanpat Rai Vs. Mahesh Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi233; 26(1984)DLT12; 1984(6)DRJ244; 1984RLR402
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The respondent Shri Mahesh Aggarwal carries on business at Gangtok (Sikkim) under the name and style of M/s. Aggarwal Trading Company as also M/s. Laxmi Stores. On 11th January 1979, he obtained an ex-parte decree for recovery of Rs. 13,637/8OP against (i) M/s. Ganga Ram Dhanpat Rai, 472, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and (ii) M/s. Assam Bengal Carrying Corporation, 10879, ldgah Road, Nabi Karim, New Delhi. His claim was for damages for the loss of consignments of goods booked by him with Judgment Debtor No. 2 on 14th October 1976 and 18th October 1976. He applied for transfer of the aforesaid decree for. execution to the civil courts at Delhi and the necessary certificate was granted to him on 19th February 1980. Accordingly, he took out execution of the aforesaid decree at Delhi against both the judgment-debtor firms, inter alia, stating that they had not paid anything towards the satisfaction of the decree till then. It appears that the said application was dism...
Joginder Singh Bedi Vs. Sardar Singh Narang and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi319; 26(1984)DLT162; 1985RLR11
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance. The suit was decreed in favor of the purchaser by a learned single judge of this court on 4-12-1981. From that decree the vendor appeals to this court. A transferee of the property has also filed cross-objections. (2) The appellant Joginder Singh Bedi was the owner of House No. A-67 South Extension Part I, New Delhi. He is the vendor. On 29-4-1972 he agreed to sell the house to Narotam Singh, respondent No. 2, a Thailand based Indian for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000. He is the purchaser. At the time of the execution of the agreement to sell a sum of Rs. 20,000 was paid by the purchaser to the vendor. In furtherance of the agreement to sell the vendor executed a sale deed in favor of the purchaser on 3-5-1972 engrossed on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 10,800. The purchaser asked the vendor to obtain an income tax clearance certificate and to get the sale deed registered. The purchaser was prepared to pa...
Anand Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR438
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is a petition u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act for directing the respondents to file the arbitration agreement and to refer the disputes mentioned in this application to arbitration. (2) It is not in dispute that an agreement was entered into between the parties in respect of some civil works which the petitioner was to carry out. According to the petitioner he completed the work, but there were some breaches which was committed by the respondents. It is further alleged that the respondents illegally and arbitrarily cancelled the contract on 9.8.82. The respondents state that the contract was cancelled on 22.7.82. Nothing will turn on this. It is further alleged by the petitioner that he had approached the respondents for the release of his lawful and legal dues, that it was made clear that in case the Deptt. did not accede to the request then the matter should be referred to arbitration. (3) In the petition which has been filed, the petitioner has enumerated 29 di...
Ram Body Builders Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 31, New Delhi, and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: [1984]56STC118(Delhi)
Kapur, J. 1. By this writ petition the petitioner sought to challenge the virus of certain provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The petitioner being a 'registered dealer' for the purpose of the Delhi Sales Tax Act has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 44,776.82 as interest under section 27(1) of the Act. It may be mentioned that the said amount of interest is due as simple interest in case a registered dealer fails to make the payment required by section 21(3) of the Act. There is no dispute in the present case about the facts of the case, i.e., we are concerned with the quantification of the interest, but with the validity of the provision. 2. It will be convenient here to refer to section 21 which states that tax has to be paid in the manner prescribed and sub-section (2) provides that every registered dealer and every other dealer who is furnished a notice to file a return of turnover, have to file their returns. It is then that sub-section (3) comes into operation and t...
Air Conditioning Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT206TriDel
1. M/s. Air Conditioning Corporation, New Delhi has filed a Revision Application dated 27-1-1981 against the order-in-appeal No. 389/Cal of 1979 dated 31-8-79 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. The appellants are manufacturing amongst other things Cooling Towers which prior to 1-3-75 when the Tariff Item 68 was introduced, was non-excisable. The cooling tower in question was a device to cool water and oil from high temperature to approximately in the Wet Bulb Temperature of the atmospheric air. The Cooling Tower consists of its body, fan blades etc. and for the purpose of making it a complete unit, electric motors are fitted into it before these were cleared from the factory. The appellants had contended that the blade assemblies fitted with the Cooling Towers were 'parts' of the complete unit and, therefore, these parts could not be separately classified under Tariff Item No. 33(2). The appellants say that they declared these items under Sr. No. 5 of the...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT111TriDel
1. The present proceedings arise out of a Show Cause Notice dated 6th October, 1980 issued by the Central Government to M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., Madras (hereinafter referred to as MRF) under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The notice was in relation to Order-in-Appeal No.1215/80, dated 21-4-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, whereby the Appellate Collector disposed of the appeal before him against the order of adjudication dated 24-1-1978 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. The proceedings initiated with the issue of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice came to be transferred to this Tribunal in terms of Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.3. The Supreme Court, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1409-10/77, 10108/80 and C.A. Nos. 3195/79 and 6811/83 (The Asstt Collector of Central Excise etc. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »