Delhi Court September 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.
Bachan Singh Vs. Rajinder Prasad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi101; 27(1985)DLT114; 1985(8)DRJ1; 1984RLR706
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 24th December 1983 of an Additional Rent Controller (respondent No. 2 herein) granting leave to contest the eviction petition to respondent No. 1.(2) The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner was in the employment of Delhi Fire Service as a Fireman. The said Service is a wing/unit of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Thus, being a municipal employee he was allotted official accommodation, viz. A-20, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi, by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. During his tenure in Delhi Fire Service he was able to build a house for himself which bore municipal No. AB-86, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It comprised one living room on each of the two floors besides common bath room and lavatory etc. He let out a portion of the said premises comprising one room & open terrace on the first floor with common user of W.C. on the ground floor to respondent No. 1 sometime in ...
Triveni Rubber and Plastics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT897TriDel
1. The appellants, M/s. Triveni Rubber & Plastics are manufacturers of tread rubber, a commodity assessable under Tariff Item No. 16A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. They started production on 8-10-1979. A search was conducted on 30th September, 1981 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kottayam and his officers when they found that 5807 kgs. of tread rubber had been removed from the factory without account in the factory's manufacturing records. The officers seized other things also and verified the stocks of raw materials - carbon black, rubber compound, sulphur, tread rubber stocks etc. etc. They then took a statement from one Mr. M.V. Gopinathan, managing partner of the factory in which the partner admitted a number of things which the officers thought were evidence of illegal operations. Among other things, he admitted that the 13 consignment notes covering the 5807 kgs. of tread rubber related to clearance of tread rubber from the factory without proper account. He...
Anil Bhardwaj and Others Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ75
ORDER1. So far as the merits involved in the case, no opinion can be expressed at this stage. The factual aspects will receive adjudication in due course when the parties have led their evidence. Suffice it to say that the police investigation has so far resulted in registration of a case under S. 406 I.P.C., and filing of challan on its basis. The trial court has summoned the accused after considering those challan papers to find whether a prima facie case is made out or not. Apart from this, there have been some observations by Mr. M. A. Khan, Additional District Judge, Delhi, in the penultimate paragraph of his detailed judgment dt. 30-3-1983 by which he dismissed the petition for divorce moved by Anil Bhardwaj, the husband against his wife Nirmalesh under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. After extensively discussing the evidence led by the parties before him, he had observed as under :- 'In the foregoing paras it has been held that the respondent's father had given one fridge on th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajay Hari Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR145(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The present petition under section 256(2) of the income-tax Act, 1961, seeks a reference of the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the failure on the part of the ITO to specify the particular item/items of the additions on which penalty under s. 271(1)(c) may be levied was such as to vitiate the validity of the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) ?' 2. The question has arisen because the assessed who had declared an income of Rs. 1,16,490 was assessed by the Income-tax Officer on an income of Rs. 1,64,212 which was reduced in appeal to Rs. 1,46,490. According to the Department, the assessed had certain concealed income which can be determined from the fact that household expenses had been underestimated and traveling expenses of family and club expenses as well as medical expenses which had been reimbursed had not been shown properly. This is what has led to the add...
Ansal Properties and Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reliance International C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi401
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) In a Suit for recovery of Rs. 8,10,000 the case set up by the plaintiff M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. in brief is, that the plaintiff company is carrying on the business of real estate and development and paper manufacturing in Delhi, having its registered office at Ansal Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi; that Shri Sushil Ansal is the Managing Director of the plaintiff company and is authorised to file the present suit against the defendant, M/s. Reliance International Corporation Pvt. Ltd.; that the plaintiff company had decided to purchase a second-hand paper machine and in that connection got in touch with one M/s. Overseas Market Incorporation, New York (hereinafter called the foreign company) for the said purpose; that after negotiations it was agreed between the plaintiff company and the said foreign company that the plaintiff will buy a second-hand machine belonging to the foreign company at a price of U.S. $ 2,75,000, subject to the pl...
Kishan Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes827; 27(1985)DLT91
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) This petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against an order dated 30-11-1983 of Mr. Mahesh Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the revision petition of the petitioner Kishan Chand against the framing of charge against him by Mr. Prem Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, was dismissed. (2) The case had been set into motion on a report lodged by the petitioner's wife Smt. Shobha Chhabra against him with the police on 27-7-1981 to the effect that the petitioner had been threatening, quarrelling and ill treating her. He had also been demanding more dowry and had further told her that he would keep her in the house only if she brought a fridge and T.V. On 23-7-1981, she next stated that the petitioner had taken away all her goods which included sofa, Godrej almirah, doubled bed, ornaments, etc. which had been given to her as dowry. This list of the rest of the articles, she stated, would be furnished later after scrutiny. Action in accordance with the law was, t...
Bansidhar Ramgopal Vs. Director of Enforcement and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ7
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) M/S. Bansidhar Ramgopal petitioner in Civil Writ No. 590 of 1971 and M/s.Bansidhar Biharilal petitioner in Civil Writ No. 591 of 1971, have challenged the two show cause notices issued to them on 10th October, 1969, for contravention of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, (hereinafter called the '1947 Act') read with Central Government Notification No. 6(8)-EF-II/52, dated 22nd April, 1952. The said notices in both the cases are in identical terms and a copy thereof has been annexed as Annexure 'E' to each of the Writ petitions. They were issued by Shri M.G. Wagh, Director, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue & Insurance, Government of India The petitioners have further impugned the decision taken by the said Director vide letter of 8th June, 1970 (copy Annexure 'F') to hold adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 23D of 1947 Act. This decision was taken after considering t...
Shalimar Cinema and anr. Vs. BhasIn Film Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1984
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi14
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This EFA(OS) has arisen out of and is directed againt the order dated 10-1-1983 passed by G. R. Lirthra J. whereby the application under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Section 151 of the Code of Cvil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as Civil Procedure Code .) for setting aside the auction sale held on 1-9-1977 of 28/48 shares of the Judgment-debtors Shamiudin and Nasimudin in an immovable property known as 'Shalimar Corporation & another cinema, Bhogal, New Delhi', in execution of a decree for Rs. 1,44,973.00 passed in favor of decree-holder M/s bhasin Film Corporation against Shamiudin and Nasimudin. each of the above-mentioned judgment-debtors held 14/28 shares in the Shalimar Cinema.(2) The objections contained in the application under Order 21 Rule 90 Civil Procedure Code were resisted both by the decree-holder as well as the auction-purchaser M/s Malhotra Brothers exhibitors (P) Limited.(3) The following issues were framed by thelearned.Single Judge on ...
Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Del)1; [1985]153ITR275(Delhi)
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' have referred the following question for our opinion : 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the claim for deduction of interest levied under Section 139 to the extent of Rs. 11,4701- and in.terest levied under Section 215 to the extent ofRs. 1,04,339- was rightly rejected as not allowable.(2) The assessed is a limited company. The income of the assessed is derived from yarn manufacture and helicopter operations. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 on 31-6-1972. He levied on the basis of the assessment interest under Section 139 to the extent of Rs. 11,4701- and interest under Section 215 to the extentof Rs. 1,04,339, the total amount of interest being Rs. 1.15,809.The assessed claimed deduction of this interest amount ofRs. 1,15,809'- under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act. 1961in computing the business profits. The Appellate Assistant Commissione...
Janardhan Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1984
Reported in: 1985(22)ELT697(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the orders dated November 4, 1982 and July 7, 1983 passed by respondent No. 3 and further a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to issue import license to the petitioner for import of sub-assemblies of the value of Rs. 26,400 and for import of loud-speakers (cone type) of the value of Rs. 6,600.2. The petitioner is a citizen of India and is carrying on small scale industry of manufacturing tape recorders, two-in-one tape recorders plus radio and tape recorders/car cassette player, combination thereof with the radio under the name and style of M/s. Jugglie Electronics. In order to manufacture the aforesaid items, it sometimes becomes necessary for the petitioner to import certain items/parts from abroad. The import policy for the period April, 1981 to March, 1982 (for short called AM 82) was declared and issued by the Government of India. The Government released a Hand Book of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »