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.
Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Raj Vij
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes662; 1984(7)DRJ323; 1984RLR554
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) Smt. Raj Kumari and Dev Raj Vij were married in the year 1950. The marriage, however, floundered, and in the year 1956 the husband applied for judicial separation. This was without success, and his final appeal -was dismissed by the High Court in 1968. There has been no child.(2) On 18-3-1969 Smt. Raj Kumari moved a petition for grant of maintenance to her under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was allowed at the rate of Rs. 125.00 per month by an order made by a Magistrate on 21-6-1973. The maintenance allowance was payable from the date of the petition. Both the sides assailed this order in revisions. Smt. Raj Kumari contended that the maintenance was too meagre, while the husband pleaded that the Delhi court had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. This latter contention prevailed with the High Court, and as such the petition for maintenance stood rejected. Naturally in the circumstances, the propriety of enhancing the maintenance could not be the...
Quality Steel Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT775TriDel
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore on 9-9-1983, wherein he imposed penalty of Rs. 3,000/-, confiscated Steel Furniture (subject to redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-) and demanded from the appellant duty amount of Rs. 47,000/- (approx. as the demand is stated not to have been quantified) in the impugned order.2. The background of the matter is that Shri Abdul Rasheed appellant is the Proprietor of M/s. Quality Steel Industries (hereinafter referred to as "Quality"). He was held to be also the real manufacturer in respect of M/s. Unity Steel Industries. It was further held by the Addl. Collector that the appellant's wife is only lender of name to Shri Rasheed and that both units are one and the same in so far as the manufacture and proprietory interest was concerned. For these reasons it was held that the units are not entitled to the concession of Notification No. 80/80-C.E. Consequently the demand for duty and th...
Vipul Shipyard Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT122TriDel
1. These are four appeals involving common questions of fact and law and hence they were taken up for hearing together.2. This appeal and the other appeals involve the interpretation of the term "Ocean-going vessels". By Notification 89/79 of Central Excise, dated 1-3-79, the Central Government exempted goods falling under Tariff Item No. 68 and cleared for home consumption on or after 1st April in any financial year by or on behalf of a manufacturer upto an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 15,00,000/-. The assessee could avail the benefit of the exemption provided an officer, not below the rank of an Assistant Collector, was satisfied that the sura total of the value of the capital investment made from time to time on plant and machinery was not more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. By Notification 105/80, dated 19-6-80, Notification 89/79 was superseded and certain modifica- tions were made in regard to the clearances and the eligibility was fixed for the period from 1st April in any financia...
Shamshad Ali @ Shamshad and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes359; 28(1985)DLT66
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) These are three appeals arising out of a single judgment delivered by Shri V.B. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi on 30.7.1983. The fourth accused Abdul Aziz who was as well convicted Along with these appellants, has not chosen to file any appeal as he was given the benefit of probation. (2) The convictions were under section 399 and 402 Indian Penal Code . Each of the three appellants now before the court was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under each of the counts, Mustkin who had a dagger with him, was further convicted under section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, and required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1' year. (3) Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on the night of 25th and 26th October, 1980, Harbans Singh Inspector of Police received an information that accused persons were likely to assemble near a deserted well in Paschimpuri, Delhi. He thereforee, organized a raiding party. They were divided into th...
Ashok theatres Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD552(Delhi)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the AAC.It is relevant for the assessment year 1980-81.2. The assessee-firm was constituted vide partnership deed dated 2-4-1978. Application in Form No. 11 was filed on 30-3-1979 for registration of the firm. The ITO was satisfied with the genuineness of the firm and registration was allowed for the assessment year 1980-81.3. In the course of the assessment proceeding the ITO noticed that the assessee claimed depreciation on enhanced value of some old machinery and building used previously by a firm of the same name Ashok Theatres, Shamli. Since the ITO was not convinced about the genuineness of the claim, he took recourse to Section 43(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). After getting the approval of the IAC in this behalf the ITO revalued the assets as follows: The ITO, accordingly, allowed the claim of depreciation on the above basis.4. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee went in appeal before the AAC, who, ...
Ladoo Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT254
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) Rajesh Kumar aged about 19 years, his brother Sudhir Kumar aged about 16 years and Mahender Kumar aged about 15 years, all residents of a house near clock tower Subzi, Mandi Delhi, were returning at about 11.00 p.m. on 5-10-1981 to their house after seeing Ramlila at Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. They, however were waylaid by four persons who made them to accompany them to a nearby school by threatening them with a knife and lathis. There Rajesh Kumar and Sudhir Kumar were robbed of their clothes which they were wearing except the underwears, and also Rs. 6u.00 and Rs. 11.00 respectively which they possessed, Mahender Kumar was similarly deprived of Rs. 7.00 and a wrist watch, which, he possessed. He was required to hand over his clothes as well, but when he resisted, he was given beating. On alarm Bering raised by them, the assailants fled. Ladoo amongst them, was apprehended at some distance. The others were arrested on different dates subsequently. One of them, namely....
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chennai Bottling Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT129TriDel
1. This is an application together with cross objections under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for reference to the High Court of certain questions, said to be question of law, arising out of the Order No. SB(T) A. 514/82-A dated 9-8-1983 of the 'A' Bench of this Tribunal.2. In the application, itself, the questions of law have not been formulated. Subsequently, on 18-4-1984, an application for replacement of Annexure II to the Reference Application was made. The replaced Annexure contained the following questions said to be questions of law : (i) Whether the Tribunal has right to confirming the order-in-appeal without giving any ruling on the applicability of Section 11-B to the facts of this instant case, when the Appellate Collector has set aside the order-in-original solely on the ground that only Section 11-B and not the then Rule 11 applies to the facts of this case (ii) Whether Section 11-B which came into effect from 1...
Indian Tool Manufacturers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT527TriDel
1. The common issue involved in these three appeals of the same appellants is whether Carbide Throw Away Inserts manufactured by the appellants fall under Item 51A (iii) of the Central Excise Tariff, as urged by them, or under Item 62, as held by the lower authorities. The two rival items of the Tariff read as under :- "51A (iii). Tools designed to be fitted into hand tools, machine tools or tools falling under sub-item (ii), including dies for wire drawing, extrusion dies for metals and rock drilling bits;" "62. Tool tips, in any form or size, unmounted, of sintered carbides of metals such as tungsten, molybdenum and vanadium." The Bench pointed out to the appellants that one of their appeals had been entirely allowed by the Appellate Collector on the ground of time-bar and in view of that whether they would like the Bench to consider all their three appeals. The appellants stated that they would like to argue on all the three appeals because even the Appellate Collector had rejected...
Ahmed Oomerbhoy (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT556(Del)
ORDERN.N. Goswamy, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25-5-1978 passed by the second respondent and the subsequent appellate orders whereby the application of the petitioner-company for the grant of cash assistance and/or replenishment licenses was rejected on the ground that the date of the mate receipt was to be treated as the date of export and the said date being 5-6-1976 while the policy of cash assistance on the export of onions was withdrawn w.e.f. 1-6-1976. 2. The case as set out in the petition is that the petitioners exported various quantities of onions through the third respondent which was the recognised canalising agency between the period April to June 1976. As far as the petitioners were concerned they had complied with all formalities pertaining to the said exports and were issued five authenticated copies of shipping bill bearing Nos. 021021, 22, 25, 26 and 27 dated 22-5-1976. In respect of such export...
Gujarat Oxygen Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT572(Del)
R.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Gujarat Oxygen Ltd. challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 16th August 1978 passed by the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports refusing to revalidate the license granted to the petitioner on 8th May 1974 for import of 1575 cylinders of gas. The petitioner company was originally owned by Poly gas Limited, Bhavnagar, but it changed hands. The company was originally located at Bhavnagar but the new management shifted the company from Bhavnagar to Limdi. The afore-mentioned license for import of 1575 cylinders was valid up to 14th January 1978. On 27th December 1977 the new management applied for revalidation of the license. The Chief Controller of Imports & Exports wrote to the petitioner company inquiring about the date of the valid contract signed by the company for the import of the cylinders to enable them to consider the request for the revalidation of the license. The petitioner com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »