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.
S.K. Dey Vs. D.C. Gagerna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi169; 26(1984)DLT438
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against order dated 12th of November 1981 of the Rent Controller whereby she dismissed the eviction petition filed by petitioner/landlord against the respondent/tenant as being without merit. (2) The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner/ landlord of premises bearing No. B-7/84, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. It is a two storeyed building. The father of the petitioner Shri A. K. Dey has been residing on the first floor since 1969 when the Property in question was constructed. However, the ground floor has been let to different tenants from time to time. It was last let to the respondent on 1st January 1979 under an oral agreement of tenancy at Rs. 700.00 per mensem exclusive of water and electricity charges. On 24th July 1980 the petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent on the ground of bona fide personal requirement falling under clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi ...
Lalji and Co. and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes345; 26(1984)DLT301; [1985]154ITR728(Delhi)
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . and Article 227 of the Constitution of India has arisen in following circumstances :(2) A complaint stands filed by one R.K. Roye, Income-tax officer District X(3), Delhi against M/s. Shanti Vijay & Co. and 17 othets, with allegations that they have committed offences under Section 277/278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 arid Section 193196 Indian Penal Code . It is pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. On its basis summons were issued to all the respondents for appearance and facing trial. M/s. Lalji & Co. and its three partners who are imp leaded as respondents No. 6 to 8 in that complaint, feeling aggrieved against the service of those summons on them have now moved this petition for setting aside and/or quashing the issue of process to them by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.(3) Notice to show cause why this petition be not adnutted, was issued to the respondents...
Ramakant Dixit Vs. Director General of Health Services and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ111
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated August 6, 1981, terminating the services of the petitioner in pursuance of the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.(2) A requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange to sponsor qualified and experienced persons for appointment as General Duty Medical Officers (Ayurvedic) Grade Ii in the Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi. The petitioner was also sponsored as one of the eligible candidates and appeared for selection. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Physician under Central Government Health Scheme, Delhi on ad-hoc basis pending filling up the post by the nominee of the Union Public Service Commission on the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter dated July 25, 1980, One of the conditions was that the private practice of any kin...
i-lite Optics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT558TriDel
1.The revision application under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 against Order-in-Appeal No. 1109/82 dated 27-2-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, has been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal under the provisions of Section 131-B (2) of the said Act.2. The appellants are a small scale industrial unit registered with the Director of Industries, Rajasthan, for manufacturing opthalmic lenses and other optical goods. They imported two cases said to contain one optical profile grinding machine, along with accessories, and presented a Bill of Entry on 3-11-1980 in which they declared the classification as "84.45/48" and sought clearance under OGL Appendix 2 Part 'A' Serial No. 1(39) of A.M. 81 Policy Book which covers "Optical Profile Grinding Machine". The Assistant Collector of Customs observed that the machine imported was for mass production of spherical optical lenses and is not covered by Serial No. 1(39). Thereafter, on 30-12-1980 the Collector of Cu...
Harish Chand Vs. Ram Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR589
Leila Seth, J. (1) This is a second appeal by the defendants. The question of law formulated at the time of admission is as follows : 'WHETHER the notice of termination of tenancy giving 15 days' time to vacate the premises is valid when the premises were let for manufacturing purposes ?' (2) It is the admitted case of the parties that the lease was not registered. The question as posed, as noticed at the time of admission, is not rest Integra. A decision of this court in Jagat Taran Berry v. Sardar Sant Singh, : AIR1980Delhi7 has decided this very point. (3) A brief reference to the facts is necessary. The tenancy commenced on 20.5.59 on the basis of an oral agreement and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 91.00. The premises is a shop in property No. 9996-A, Sarai Rohilla, New Delhi. (4) On 11.5.76 a notice to quit, Ext. P.W.I/3, was served on the tenant. The said notice to quit was dated 10.5.76. The notice specified that the termination would take place w.e.f. 30.6.76. (5) On 31.12....
Orient Ceramics and Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT218TriDel
1. Amounts of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 5,000/- were deposited by the appellants under T.R. 6 Challans dated 14-2-1983 in the State Bank of India, Sikandrabad. In the challan of Rs. 1 lakh under the head of the account it was mentioned 'special duty' whereas on the challan of Rs. 5,000/- the words 'basic duty' were written. As per the case of the appellants Rs. 1 lakh were to be deposited in P.L.A. Account for basic duty (BED) and on the challan of Rs. 5,000/-special duty i.e. (SED) was to be mentioned but inadvertently and by mistake the clerk concerned put the amount of Rs. 1 lakh on the challan for SED and Rs. 5,000/- on the challan of BED. At the end of the month when the R.T. 12 return was to be submitted the mistake was realised by the dealing clerk and he changed the words BED to SED and SED to BED on the T.R. 6 challan forms and sent them to the Range Staff. On receipt of a letter from the Inspector of Central Excise on 25-3-1983 the appellants stated the position in their letter dat...
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT121TriDel
1. At the outset Shri Mehta submitted that besides the three appeals listed for hearing today there is one more appeal bearing No. 262/77-A which also involves the same legal issue. He requested that this appeal could also be taken up for consideration along with other appeals. The request being reasonable, we have acceded to it.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that at the relevant time, the appellants had filed a price-list for glycerine in different packs. In the price-list proper, the only deduction sought was with regard to excise duty. However, under columns 6 and 7 of the price-list, a mention was made of an annexure to the price-list. From the records it would appear that the annexure to the price-list is the document captioned 'post manufacturing charges' per unit for the year 1975-76.In the said statement, the appellants have set out the various packs in which the glycerine was to be marketed as also expenses incurred with regard to packing, selling expenses, publicity c...
Paliwal Glass Works Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD520(Delhi)
1. In this appeal by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1977-78 an order was passed on 26-8-1982 but this order has since been recalled and the matter has been re-heard for disposing it of afresh.2. The only ground raised is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in maintaining a diallowance of Rs. 7,280 out of legal expenses. The disallowance was made by the IAC who made the assessment in both the periods for which the assessment was made on the firm. While Rs. 1,000 was disallowed in both the periods out of legal expenses on the ground that for want of details, there was a disallowance of Rs. 5,280 in respect of the legal expenses in settling claims under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In fact, the assessee had claimed Rs. 10,280 and the assessing officer had allowed Rs. 5,000 under Section 80VV of the Act. This had the effect of disallowing Rs. 5,280. This action of the assessing officer has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Before us the dispute is again...
Pritam Singh Dhingra Vs. Ambadipudi Uma Sambamurthy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ150
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against an order of learned Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi, dated 22nd February, 1983, whereby the learned Commercial Sub-Judge, accepted an application filed by the plaintiff Under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 2 Sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) The plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 20.900.00 against the petitioner. (3) The case of the plaintiff/respondent in the plaint was that the defendant entered into an agreement dated 23rd May, 1981 with the plaintiff to sell a piece of land situated in Gurgaon measuring about 160 sq. yards. It was pleaded that the defendant represented himself to be the owner of the said property and agree to sell the land for a total consideration of Rs. l,25,000.00 At the time of execution of the said agreement on May 23, 1981, the defendant received from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10.000.00 as part p...
Hazari Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes395; 1984(7)DRJ310; 1984RLR538
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts leading to this revision petition in brief are that as per allegations contained in the Kalendra (a kind of report) submitted by Police station Railway, Delhi Main, in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Railway), S.I. Amar Nath of the said Police Station was present on patrol at platform bearing Nos. Ii & 13, Delhi Main Railway Station, on the evening of 31st October 1983. At about 9.30 P.M. the petitioner on seeing the police party turned back towards the stair-case of the over bridge. He was apprehended and a wrist watch, Citizen make, with steel chain which he was holding in his right hand was recovered from him. On interrogation he failed to produce any proof of his ownership of the watch and confessed before the police that the said wrist watch had been removed by him clandestinely from the wrist of a passenger when the Frontier Mail was standing at the outer signal. The petitioner failed to produce any railway ticket or platform ticket. Consequen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »