Delhi Court January 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 6 of about 93 results (0.022 seconds)Kamal Sons Vs. Sales Tax Officer and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]61STC23(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. This writ petition has been heard after a notice to show cause was issued. As a short point is involved, we issued rule DB and proceed to decide the petition. In this case the first respondent has withheld grant of ST-1 forms to the petitioner, who is a registered dealer. We have been taken through the Delhi Sales Tax Rules and particularly rule 8 which deals with the procedure and powers of the Sales Tax Officer in relation to the issue of ST-1 forms. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on rule 8(4)(c) which runs as under : '(c) If the applicant for declaration form ST-1 has at the time of making the application - (i) defaulted in furnishing any returns or return together with (a) such other documents and statements required to be furnished along with the return and (b) the receipted challan or challans showing payment of tax due from him according to such return or returns, for the furnishing of which the prescribed date or dates or the extended date or dat...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Anand Vs. Krishan Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi350; 27(1985)DLT269; 1985(8)DRJ178
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This revision petition under Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 17th January, 1983 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for leave to appear and contest the ejectment application filed by the respondents against him under the provisions of clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of their bona fide personal requirement. (2) It appears that the respondents-landlord filed the aforesaid ejectment application on or, about 25th January, 1982. The petition came up before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 27th January, 1982 when it was directed to be registered and it was also directed that the notice under Schedule Iii be. issued to the respondent (petitioner herein) for 14th April, 1982 vide proce...
Tag this Judgment!Krislon Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC6; 1987(27)ELT637(Del)
1. The only question which has been agitated before us in this, and in the connected Writ Petitions, is as to whether excise duty can be levied on the petitioners who are merely processing base yarn and obtaining what is known as "textures yarn".2. The relevant facts in this case are that the petitioners, as already indicated above do not manufacture any yarn. According to them base yarn is either purchased by them which is then processed to introduce crimps, coils, loops or curls or at times base yarn is sent to them for such processing. The case of the petitioners is that they do not undertake any manufacturing activity which can subject them to the levy of excise duty.3. The entry under which excise duty is sought to be levied in Entry18. The relevant Entry 18(II) reads as follows :----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Item Description of Rate of Duty No. Goods Basic Special Excise -------------------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Chopra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT273; 1985(8)DRJ166
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) This petition calls for an examination of the scope of proviso to Sub-section (2)(c), Sub-section (3) and proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (2) I need not detail the facts elaborately for the reason that undisputably a sample of ice candy was taken by the Food Inspector for analysis from the petitioner on 28th May 1982 and the report received from the public Analyst was that the sample was adulterated in as much as it contained sucrose 7.88% against the minimum prescribed limit of 10%. This standard came to be laid down with effect from 11-2-82 vide G.S.R. 57 (E). There is no dispute about the sampling having been done as prescribed by the statute. (3) On receipt of the result of analysis that the food article was found adulterated the local (Health) authority instituted prosecution u/s 7/16 P.F.A. Act against the petitioner and a copy of the result of the analysis was forwarded to him, informing the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Roomal and ors. Vs. Siri Niwas
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi153; 27(1985)DLT188
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This case is classic illustration of law's delay. The purchasers agreed to buy a parcel of land on 13-1-1961. The suit for specific performance was instituted on 18/09/1961. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of one of the purchasers on February 2,1973. The present appeals were filed in 1973. And now in 1985 we are deciding the appeals. Thus this litigation has taken a quarter of a century.(2) The plaintiffs Siri Niwas, and the two minors Satish Kumar and Brij Narain Singh, sued Roomal and Jodha for specific performance. The suit was decreed in favor of Siri Niwas. As regards the minor plaintiffs the suit wasdismissed. From the order of the Subordinate Judge dated2-2-1973 two appeals have been brought. R.F.A. 52 of 1973is the appeal of the vendors. Roomal and Jodha. They challenge the decree of specific performance obtained by Siri Niwas against (hem. R.F.A. 80 of 1973 is the appeal of the two minor plaintiffs namely, Satish and Brij Narain Singh.They...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Lal Kishan Lal Johri Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT600TriDel
1. The material facts in this Revision Application, to the Government of India, transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an Appeal pursuant to Section 82-K of the Gold (Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), briefly, are- (a) the Appellant was a H.U.F. business firm till 1-4-1965, when it was converted into a partnership concern; (b) the H.U.F. was licensed as a dealer and, on its conversion into a partnership w.e.f. 1-4-1965, the change was brought to the notice of the Department by a letter dated 1-6-1965; (c) thereafter, it was the Appellant, as a partnership firm, that was filing the returns, and, apart from otherwise dealing with the Department, was granted renewals of the licences from time to time till 1976; (d) nevertheless, the Appellant's business premises were raided and the entire stock of gold weighing about 2359.050 grams, was seized on the ground that the business in gold by the Appellant was unauthorised and appropriate entries in regard to a quantity of 13...
Tag this Judgment!Agrawal Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC612Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for decision in this matter is whether a Central Excise license, already licensed for manufacture of goods, which are liable to duty, can be compelled to include in ground plans for his A.L. 4 premises his adjoining factory producing exempted excisable goods, thereby availing of only one licence for both premises. .2. Shri D.N. Mehta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, stated that the appellants, for the last many years, have been manufacturing sheets/circles of copper and copper alloys, apart from manufacturing billets from scrap or duty-paid virgin metal. The billets fall under (Item 26A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff and are fully exempt under Government of India Notification No. 119/66-C.E. dated 16th July, 1966, as amended. Exempted billets are stored in the relevant premises along with old scrap and duty paid metal received from Government agencies as well as cuttings of duty paid sheets and circles. Duty paid un-cut sheets and circles received from t...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD15(Delhi)
1. This second appeal is directed against the order dated 6-6-1983 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 and the grievance is that the IAC's action in rejecting the assessee's claim for interest payable by the Government under Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on refunds of tax amounting to Rs. 16,73,362, has been wrongly upheld on the ground that there was no appeal provided remedying the situation under Section 246(1)(c) of the Act.2. The assessee- filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order dated 27-1-1982 passed by the IAC giving effect to the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', in IT Appeal Nos. 1326 and 1554 (Delhi) of 1979 and 423 and 4071 (Delhi) of 1980, dated 30-11-1981, in which three contentions were raised as follows : (a) that the IAC erred in not allowing deduction of Rs. 3,21,570 in respect of entertainment expenses in recomputing the taxable income ; (b) that the appellant comp...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Nisha Tea Co. and Others Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ170
ORDER1. The present petition is directed against an order dt. May 21, 1982 of Shri M. L. Sahni, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing the framing of a charge against the petitioners in respect of commission of an offence punishable under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, Mohan Lal, Surinder Kumar Aggarwal and Ram Partap Aggarwal are carrying on business as partners of a tea company under the name and style of M/s. Nisha Tea Company, petitioner No. 1. On July 21, 1980 at about 2-15 p.m. Prem Nath Khatri, Food Inspector took a sample of tea sold by M/s. Nisha Tea Company. The sample of tea was sold to the said Food Inspector by Mohan Lal, petitioner No. 2. On analysis by the Public Analyst, the said sample was found to be adulterated due to presence of iron filings, out of which one was of the size of 2.4. mm. thereforee, a complaint dated November 1, 1980 was filed before a Metropo...
Tag this Judgment!Em and Em Associates Vs. Delhi Developement Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR140(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT163
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) By means of this application brought under Section 41 read with Second -chedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner Em & Em Associates seeks a stay against the respondent Delhi Development Authority (to be referred to as DDA), their officers, agents and servants from encashing the bank guarantee/guarantee bond No. 44/82 for Rs. 46,300.00 . (2) This application is resisted by the respondent/DPA. (3) The perusal of the bank guarantee shows that the Syndicate Bank (hereinafter to be referred to as the Bank) undertook to pay the amount due and payable under this guarantee without any demur on demand from the Dda staling that the amount claimed is due by way of loss or damages caused to or would be caused to or suffered by the Dda by reason of any breach on the part of the petitioner-contractor of any of the terms and conditions contained in the original contract between the parties on the basis of which...
Tag this Judgment!