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.
Hirndoot Fabrics Vs. Sharda Ajmani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ244b
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This second appeal against the order of Rent Control Tribunal has arisen in the following circumstances. (2) Mrs. Sharda Ajmani is the owner of the premises described as House No. H-34 Green Park Extension, New Delhi on 12th May 1977 the owner let out the front portion of the said premises to M/s. Hirndoot' Fabrics for a limited period of three years. On tl.e expiry of the lease period of three years Smt. Ajmani filed an application under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for vacant possession of the demised premises. (3) The tenant filed a reply raising number of objection. The main objection was that in the application for obtaining permission from the Controller for letting out the demised premises for a limited period no reason was given why the landlady did not require the premises for the limited period of three years. The tenant pleaded that the landlady was living permanent- ly along with her husband at home to which place he had been transferred rec...
Dalmia Agencies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD318(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1976-77. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the ITO was right in disallowing the appellant's claim under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act. 2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 80AA have retrospective effect and that the said provisions were applicable in relation to the claim made by the appellant under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 80AA only deal with restricting the claim of appellant under Section 80M on the net dividend income instead of gross dividend income and it does not state that the claim under Section 80M will not be admissible at all on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant. 5. That the appe...
Verma Industrials Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT403TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture coated cotton fabrics (upholstery cloth).They purchase grey cotton fabrics from the market. Before coating them, they first apply dye of the required colour to the grey fabrics. The dispute in this appeal is whether, during the period from 16-3-76 to 28-2-77, the appellants were liable to pay processing duty on account of their activity of dyeing the grey fabrics. The Department has served on them a demand for the processing duty of Rs. 54,802.62 and both the lower authorities have upheld this demand. (1) The show cause notice dated 15-3-77 issued by the Superintendent states that the demand was raised on account of the exemption notification No. 78/76-C.E., dated 16-3-76. An exemption notification can only grant relief from payment of duty; it cannot impose duty reliance on 1978 [E.L.T. J 211 (Patna)-M/s. Bata India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna. (2) Duty can be collected only on the end product ; otherwise repeated taxation at. in...
B.K. Khanna and Co. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Del)23; ILR1985Delhi77; [1985]156ITR796(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make a refund of tax on provisional assessment under section 141A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74. 2. The petitioner, M/s. B. K. Khanna & Co. P. Ltd., is a private limited company (hereinafter called 'the company'). It carries on business as machinery distributors and consulting engineers with registered office at No. 14-F, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle IX, New Delhi, who had at the relevant time the jurisdiction in respect of the assessment of the petitioner under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued on May 23, 1972, a notice of demand for payment of advance tax under s. 210 of the Act for the assessment year 1973-74 (financial year 1972-73). The company paid advance tax during the financial year 1972-73 amounting to Rs. 2,13,095. The company furnished on...
Vasudev Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes599; 1984(7)DRJ248; 1984RLR689
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) A challan was submitted by the S.H.O. Lahori Gate police station in the court of Ms. Aruna Suresh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, alleging that the investigation of the case had revealed that an offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code was made out, and, thereforee, the two accused mentioned in the challan, namely, Som Nath and Vasu Dev should be proceeded against and tried. The background of the facts given was that on 27-11-81, the S.D.M., Local Health Authority along with an Inspector and some other staff went to Shradhanand Market for the purpose of taking samples of food-stuff. They wanted to ensure whether any adulterer ed stuff was being sold. As they approached three shops bearing Nos. D-2, D-4 and D-6, the owners of the first two shops did not allow them to take any sample, and rather put the shutters of their shops on. In this manner, they defeated the raiding party from taking any sample. The third shopkeeper of shop No. D-6, of course, complied. (2) T...
Babu Ahmed, Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes819; 1985(8)DRJ16
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) These three appeal arise out of z common judgment dated20-8-1974 of Mr. M.L. Jain, special Judge, Delhi, whereby Musaddi Lai and Sada Nand were convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 1634 I.P.C., and Babu Ahmed was convicted under Section 109 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 165-A I.PC. Each of the first two was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default of payment of which further rigorous imprisonment for two months was to be undergone. Babu Ahmed was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 109 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and like term under Section 165-A I.P.C., both to run con-currently.(2) The prosecution case was that Smt. Budho Devi had been in unauthorised occupation of a portion of plot No. 2631-34, Ward No. Viii, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, for ...
Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC68Tri(Delhi)
1. These are six revision applications filed before the Government of India which on transfer are being treated as appeals.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, dismissing the application for refund of C.V. duty, appellants have filed these revisions. Their refund application was based on Notification No. 164/75-CE dated 15-7-1975 as amended by Notification No. 49/76-CE dated 16-3-1976. The appellants contended that though the tariff rate was Rs. 2,000/- per MT regarding C.V. duty the effective rate was only Rs. 600/- per MT or Rs. 1,500/- per MT as applicable on the date of clearance from the warehouse cleared under Section 15(b) of the Customs Act. The Appellate Collector dismissed the refund application on the ground that the C.V. duty has merely been recovered at the tariff rate under Item 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule in terms of the explanation to Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act.According to him the explanation under Section 2A o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Food Specialities Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR790(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The following two question have been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the production effected during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65 was experimental, and did not amount to manufacturing activity (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its approach to the application of section 154 of the Income-tax Act 1961 ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessed, M/s. Food Specialities Ltd., was manufacturing condensed milk till almost the end of the assessment year 1964-65 which ended on December 31, 1963. Thereafter, it also set up a plant for manufacturing 'Nescafe', which is a type of coffee. It appears that though the plant started (production) towards the end of December, 1963, the assessed claimed that manufacture up to the ...
Madan Lal and ors. Vs. Amar Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes584; 26(1984)DLT480; 1984(7)DRJ317; 1984RLR697
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code by the husband, his parents, brother and sister-in-law, is directed against proceedings in a complaint filed by the wife's father against them for offences ''under Section 2 and 3' of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversing in revision the order of the trial court by which the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the 'offences' alleged were not committed at Delhi, and had, if at all, been committed at Jullundur, and the Delhi Court, thereforee, had no jurisdiction to entertain or tiy the complaint.(2) Kamlesh and Madan Lal, the first petitioner herein, were married at Delhi. Their marital life had apparently been unhappy, either because of persistent demand for gifts from the wife's in-laws, as alleged by one party, or because of incompatibility and other reasons, as is the contention of the other. Be that as it may, on or before October 1, 1982, Mada...
F.D. Larkins Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes734; 26(1984)DLT486
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to the above mentioned revision petitions succinctly are that four persons Maj. Gen. (Retd.) F. D. Larkins (petitioner in Cr. R. 78/84), his brother Air Vice-Marshal (Retd.) K. H. Larkins, Lt. Col. (Retd.) Jasbir Singh (petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 90/84) and Jaspal Singh Gill alias Jassi Gill have been committed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide order dated 16th April 1984 to stand trial on charges under Sections 3, 5, 6, 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (for short the Act) read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Earlier cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 4th February 1984 on a charge-sheet being presented by the police who had investigated into the case and the complaint instituted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi, which was attached to the police repo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »