Delhi Court July 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.
Rajeshwar Nath Gupta Vs. Lakhbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi422
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing an order dated 29th January, 1963 passed by Shri M. S. Rohilla holding that the orders dated 25th April, 1978 passed by the trial Court during the pendency of the suit is not executable after the passing of the decree in Suit dated 26th April, 1978 and, thereforee, the application lor grant of police aid for execution of that order was not maintainable. (2) For appreciating the facts of the case. it will be necessary to give some details to the nature of the suit and various orders passed by the learned trial Court culminating in the order dated 25th April, 1978. (3) A license deed was executed by which a license was given jointly to Shri Lakhbir Singh and Sh. K. K. Khanna (since decreased), respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein by the petitioner Sh. Rajeshwar Nath Gupta, for use of rooms 1 and 2 (combined) and room No. 3 on the first floor of premises; No. 8-A Block, Connaught Place, New De...
Sudhir Bale Vs. Bilal Rai and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ140; 1984RLR541
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) In a matrimonial matter where sensitivities of the parties are deeply involved, every attempt should be made to dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible. Anand J. had already made directions in this regard. Moreover, the petitioner being a young woman, is working at Gurgaon, and frequent attendance in court naturally is likely to affect her duties apart from being expensive. The 'trial court should weigh these considerations, and, thereforee, expedite decisions. It should be impressed-upon both the sides to be present promptly on the dates fixed for hearings. No possible impression should be allowed to be created by conduct or gestures of not being favorably inclined to one party or the other. Judicial balance not only should be reflected in the orders made, but should get displayed in the attitude and conduct of cases in court. No particular order which can bring out prejudice or disfavor able dispossession has been brought out and I have no reason to take ...
State Vs. Tukkanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1866; 1984(2)Crimes665; 1984RLR523
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This order will dispose of Cr. R. No. 13/83 & Cr.M. (M) 130/83 both moved by the Delhi Admin. These are against the orders of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mr. K.B. Andley, directing return of the passports on superdari to respondents. (2) The background is that two cases stand registered u/Ss 420/468471/120-B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 & 26 of Immigration Act, 1922 at Police Station Palam Airport. They are to the effect that some unscrupulous persons have been sending Indian citizens to Middle East countries on the basis of forged Protector of Emigrants clearing stamps besides forged signatures of Protector of Emigrants, New Delhi. The passports of the respondents who in one case are 17 in number and in the other 15, were seized after they had been initially cleared by the air-port staff for going abroad. The investigation later by the crime branch revealed that those stamps and signatures of the Protector of Emigrants were, in-fact forged, The investigatio...
Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes343; 26(1984)DLT239
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) Balbir Singh, Surender Pal Singh and Amrik Singh have moved this appeal against their conviction by Shri T.S. Oberoi, Additional Sessions Judge under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code . Balbir Singh was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 . He was further required to execute a personal bond under section 106 Cr. P.C. in the amount of Rs. 3000.00 along with one surety for keeping peace for a period of one year. The other two appellants being below the ages 21 years, were allowed the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, and required to furnish bond for Rs. 3,000.00 each with one surety in the like amount to keep good behavior and safe conduct for one year. (2) Briefly stated the prosecution case was that Amrik Singh complainant and his nephew Surender Pal Singh were standing at the 1.P. College bus stand on 28-4-1981 at 8.30 P.M. having parked their taxis of which they were drivers at a nearby taxi stand. They were then proceed...
All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officers' Association Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Del)1; ILR1984Delhi567; [1984]150ITR1(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) Officers of Oriental Bank of Commerce in C.W.P. 1540/83 and officers of Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. in C.W.P. 626183 are entitled to House Rent Allowance. (for short H.R.A.) as per their service contracts and subject to a maximum of Rs. 400 per month depending upon the cities where they are transferred. Officers are being paid H.R.A. by the said banks irrespective of the. fact whether they arc residing in tenancy premises or residing in their own residential accommodation. The question raised in these petitions is that the amount of H.R.A. received by the officers who are actually residing in their own residential houses/flats is not liable to bs included in computing the total income of a previous year under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).(2) The plea of the petitioners is that .the amount received is exempt in view of the provisions of Section 10(13A) read with Rule2-A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rul...
Suraj Bhan, Etc. Vs. the Labour Court, Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi552
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This petition has been filed by Suraj Bhan and 24 others under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing an order dated 25th March. 1981 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Delhi dismissing an application filed by them under Sub-Section (2) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as incompetent.(2) The petitioners and one other had filed a petition purporting to be under Sub-Section 2 of Section 33C of the Act alleging inter alias as under : THEapplicants, named above, the workmen of above named employer, are entitled to receive from the said employer, the benefits mentioned in the statement annexed, on the following facts and grounds: THAT all applicants are employees of the aforesaid employer. They were coerced to submit resignation in the month of May, 1976 under guise of Emergency. In this way they were turned out of employment, and this termination amounts to illegal retrenchment, havin...
Phoolsons Agricultural Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1984
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT125TriDel
1. We have heard, Shri R.K. Jain, learned Consultant in support of the appeal dated 27-1-1984 filed by M/s Phoolson Agricultural Industries (Regd.), Baraut against the Order-in-appeal Nos. 237 & 238/1983, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. We also heard Sh. K.V. Kunhikrishnan, D.R. on behalf of the Department.2. Sh. R.K. Jain, learned Consultant pointed out that Order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi suffers from the following infirmities : Firstly, it refers to two letters addressed to the appellants by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Baraut, when in fact only one letter had been sent. The Collector dismissed both the appeals of the appellants, when in fact only one appeal had been preferred before him.Secondly, although the Collector has considered the two letters of the Supdt. Central Excise, Baraut as not appealable, he was pleased to 'dismiss' the two appeals by his aforesaid order.Thirdly, although the Col...
Jayant Dalal Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT668TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture Nylon Monomer Castings from Caprolactum.The basic dispute in this case is whether these castings fall under Item 15-A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff (Articles made of plastic materials), as held by the Collector, or under Item 68 (All other goods, not elsewhere specified), as urged by the appellants.2._Before proceeding with the rival claims of the two sides, it would be useful to set out a few basic facts relevant to this case :-November'74 - - The appellants commenced manufacture of Caprolac tum Castings under the brand name "NYLOCAST". Item 15-A(2) existed in the Central Excise Tariff at that time.1-3-75 - Item 68 introduced in the Central excise Tariff. The appellants, however, did not come forward to get a licence and pay duty as, they claim, they never employed more than 49 workers in their factory and were, therefore, totally exempt from payment of duty under Item 68 at that time.4-3-77 - Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' factory. On...
Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD838(Delhi)
1. As these are cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue, they are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is a private limited company who is an authorised dealer for Premier and Ambassador Cars, Matador Vans, Tempoes and Lamberetta scooters. Its relevant accounting year ended on 30-6-1976.The assessee-company filed return showing loss of Rs. 5.58 lakhs which was received to Rs. 5.57 lakhs. The ITO completed the assessment computing the loss at Rs. 1.80 lakhs.3 to 12. [These paras art not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 13. The last ground in the revenue's appeal is against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s direction to carry forward assessed loss. The ITO had laconically stated at page 24 of the assessment order that 'loss not to be carried forward as the return filed late'. In para 2 of the assessment order, date of filing of loss return of Rs. 5.58 lakhs is not given though it is mentioned that revised return was filed on 28-3-1980 showing loss of Rs. 5....
Indian Petrochemicals Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1984
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT66TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, under Section 35P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants (hereafter referred to as IPCL) cleared mixed-xylene falling under Item No. 6 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule at 'nil' rate of duty in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 276/67, dated 21-12-1967 to M/s. Alkalies & Chemicals Corporation of India Ltd. (ACCI). Since the mixed-xylene was used by the latter as solvent and thinner for manufacture of paints and varnishes, the Department took the view that IPCL was not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 276/67. The C.T. 2 certificate (the prescribed certificate for availment of the benefit of Chapter X Procedure) against which the clearances were effected by IPCL was also taken to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »