Delhi Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-vi Vs. J. Patel and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)90; ILR1984Delhi234; [1984]149ITR682(Delhi)
Goel, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV, New Delhi : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that benefit of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation was available to a registered firm for adjustment against the income of the succeeding year ?' 2. The assessed is a registered firm having two partners. For the assessment year 1970-71, it was assessed on a total income of Rs. 80,150. This comprised entirely of business income. For the immediately preceding assessment year, its total income had been assessed at a new loss of Rs. 80,100, which was duty allocated in equal shares to the two partners, Shri J. R. Patel and Smt. Dhai Laxmi Pate. The ITO relying on the provisions of s. 75 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), did not allow the assessed-firm the be...
Sudama Saran Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: 1984(3)Crimes357; ILR1984Delhi437
H.L. Anand, J. (1) Two questions arise in this petition: If the petitioner, a class Ii officer of the Central Government, can be said to be 'not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government'? If so, can it be said on the facts of this case, if he was 'accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty'? These questions arise in the context of a challenge to the validity of his prosecution on the ground that in the absence of sanction of government u(s 197 of the Code, the Court seized of the case could not have taken cognizance of the offence. (2) The facts are these : The petitioner is being tried for an offence under Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code of allegations that as a public servant, he had drawn advance. against daily allowance and traveling allowance, to carry out official duties outside Delhi and submitted false T.A. adjustment Bill and supporting vouche...
Raghunandan Prasad Vs. the Institute for the Physically Handicapped an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT127; 1985LabIC148; (1984)IILLJ339Del
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. Disabled and physically and mentally handicapped are receiving increasing attention all the world over. The Central Government under the auspices of the Department of Social Welfare in the Ministry of Educations, Social Welfare Culture Health established in 1976 a body called 'The Institute for the Physically Handicapped' at New Delhi ('the Institute'). This is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, XXI of 1860. The main object of the Institute is the 'education and rehabilitation of the handicapped'. It offers rehabilitation services, such as education, training, work-adjustment to Orthopedically handicapped persons, mentally retarded and others. For the rehabilitation of the handicapped, the Institute trains physiotherapists, occupational-therapists. They also manufacture and distribute such aids and appliances as are needed for the rehabilitation of the handicapped. 2. The Society has framed Rules. Rule 3 provides for two main author...
Meteor Satellite Ltd. and Telstar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT271TriDel
1. This Appeal No. 1228/83-Meteor Satellite v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda and Appeal No. 1229/ 83 (Telstar Electronic, Ahmedabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda) arising out of the same order dated 30-12-1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, raise common issues and are disposed of by this order.2 The question for decision in the two appeals is whether appellant M/s. Meteor Satellite Ltd. (hereinafter called Meteor) is the real manufacturer of pistons manufactured by appellant Telstar Electronics (hereinafter be called Telstar) and whether appellant Telstar Electronics was not entitled to avail of the benefit of the Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-1978 as amended by Notification No.80/80, dated 19-6-1978 and exemption from licensing control under Notification 111/78, dated 2-5-1978.3. Meteor is a Public Ltd. Co. registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engeged in the business of manufacturing automobile pistons and other parts falling under T ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Simac Group (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT115TriDel
1. The question for decision in these appeals, originally a show cause notice issued by the Government of India against Order-in-Appeal No.220/81-B.C, dated 16-4-81 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay is whether flat knitting machine Model DX 2000 manufactured by the respondents is classifiable under heading 84.37 (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and parts of the same imported under heading 84.38(1) as claimed by the respondents or under heading 84.37(2) and the parts under 84.38(2) as claimed by the appellant (Department).2. Respondents are manufacturer of knitting machines. One of the Models is Model DX 2000. They, by two Bills of Entry imported certain parts for these machines. At the time of import the parts were assessed under heading 84.38(2). They applied for refund claiming re-classification under heading 84.38(1). The Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay by orders dated 16-10-80 and 21-10-80 held that the knitting machines were domestic machines and he reje...
Tamilnadu Steels Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)(0)LC934Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Tamilnadu Steels, Arakkonam has filed a Revision Application dt. 30.5.1981 which is directed against the Order No. 4/81 of 1981 dated 21st February, 1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.This Revision Application has now been transferred to the Tribunal and is being considered as an appeal. The appellants are manufacturers of steel billets and castings falling under item 26AA(i) and item 26AA(v) of the Central Excise Tariff. An Incentive Scheme to encourage higher production was introduced by the Government and this was promulgated in Notification No. 198/76-CE, dated 16.6.1976. These iron and steel products manufactured by the appellants were specified as eligible for the incentive scheme. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore granted the refund due to the appellants in respect of basic excise duty but denied any benefit in respect of auxiliary duty paid by the appellants. The appellan...
Kishore Metal and Wire Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC406Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Bombay, dated 8.3.1983 confirming the orders of the Assistant Collector, Bombay, dated 20.4.1982. the appellants are carrying on business of manufacturing, amongst others, copper wire bars, strips, rods, flats and bus bars. They have been manufacturing these items ever since 1979. For the purpose of their manufacture, the appellants allege that they have been importing the scrap as well as utilizing the scrap purchased from the local market. The appellants filed their classification lists in respect of those consignments on 25.9.1979 showing copper and copper alloy, flats and bars as goods falling under Tariff Item 26A. They claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification 119/66 dated 16.7.1966. Of the three units, M/s. Shakti Metal Industries and M/s. Steel Appliances Industries are not manufacturing any other excisable goods. The third unit, M/s.Alloys Casting Works Manufacturing Com...
Chander Parkash Tyagi Vs. Department of Customs (Preventive), Central ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT240(Del)
Jagdish Chandra, J.1. This order shall dispose of the following petitions brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :- 1. Chander Parkash Tyagi v. Deptt. of Customs, Crl. M (M) 1090/83 2. Shankar Lal Aggarwal v. Deptt. of Customs etc., Crl. M (M) 1149/83 3. Azhar Ali Zai v. Deptt. of Customs etc., Crl. M (M) 1150/83 4. Sriniwas Jain v. Deptt. of Customs etc., Crl. M (M) 19/84 5. Baldeep Singh v. Deptt. of Customs etc., Crl. M (M) 1151/83 6. Union of India v. Vinod Bhardwaj etc., Crl. M (M) 263/84 2. In the first five above mentioned petitions the impugned orders have been passed by Shri Mahesh Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in criminal revisions whereby the orders passed by the learned trial courts holding the sanctions for prosecutions as valid, were upheld. In the aforesaid sixth petition the impugned order was passed by Shri B. B. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 3-11-198...
Electric Construction and Equipment Company Ltd. Vs. Jagjit Electric W ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi363; [1986]59CompCas453(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT525; 1984(7)DRJ145; 1984RLR549
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The appellant's Suit for the recovery of Rs. 28,326.45 was dismissed by the trial Court (Additional District Judge), on the ground that the Suit was not instituted by a duly authorised person; no point was decided in the Suit. (2) Though a number of issues were framed in the Suit, the judgment was confined on Issue No. 2-'Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised person OPP'. (3) On this issue, the Court referred to the statement of Shri Ram Pershad, Public Witness . 1, who relied on the fact that he was entitled to file the suit as Secretary and General Attorney of the Company. The Court referred to the photostat copy of the power of attorney. Exhibit Public Witness . 1/3 and came to the conclusion that it purported to have been executed by the Electric Construction and Equipment Company Limited under its common seal and was executed by a Director and the Chief Accountant on the basis of a resolution of the Board of Directors dated 29t...
State Vs. Ram Kanwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes1040; 1984(7)DRJ63
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This order shall dispose of the reference made on 28-7-1983 under Section 395(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr. P.C.) by Sh. S.M. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Delhi. The question posed by this reference is whether it shall be just and proper to subject Ram Kanwar accused to the present fresh trial under Sees. 409/477-IPC and Section 5(l)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in respect of 8 items of criminal breach of trust of money alleged to have been committed for a total sum of Rs. 10,048.13 P. during the year 1978 by employing the modus ope- randi of falsification of accounts in his capacity as cashier in the office of Director General of Civil Aviation, R.K. Pnram, New Delhi on the basis of a complaint ofShri R.N. Dass, Assistant Director (Admn.) made by him to the C.B.I, on 19-12-1979, registered with the Cbi and incorporated into R.C. No. 50/79 on 26-12-1979 and wherein the charge sheet was filed on 31-8-1981, in the face of his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »