Delhi Court October 1985 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax, Delhi-v Vs. Ravindra Tube Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: [1986]162ITR235(Delhi)
H.L. Anand, J.1. These are two petitions by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and to refer to this court the following question of law for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy as received by the assessed-company under '10 per cent. Central Outright Grant or Subsidy Scheme, 1971' was not to be reduced from the cost of the assets owned by the assessed-company under section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The petitions were field in the following circumstances. The assessed, in both the petitions, Ravindra Tube Limited, had set up an industrial unit in a selected backward/area and was entitled in terms of '10 per cent. Central Outright Grant or Subsidy Scheme, 1971', to 10% grant or subsidy by the financial institutions/stage government, during the two previous years corresponding to the assessment year...
Sahni Enterprises Vs. New Filmistan Cinema, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)ARBLR411(Delhi); 1986(10)DRJ6
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge rejecting the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed on the basis of an alleged agreement dated 12th December, 1974. The petitioner was seeking a reference to arbitration on the basis of an agreement between M/s Sahni Enterprises and M/s Filmistan Cinema but the first respondent company M/s Filmistan Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd. claim that they were not party to the alleged agreement and actually the agreement was one between M/s Sahni Enterprise and Movies Pvt. Ltd. who were bookers to a cinema known as Filmistan Cinema situated at Model Basti. The learned single Judge held from the evidence that it was not established that the agreement had been signed on behalf of M/s Filmistan Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd. (2) The real question to be decided in the petition under Section 20 was whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between M/s Sahni Enterprises and M/s Filmistan Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd. b...
Parkash Chander Manchanda and ors. Vs. N.V. Sundra Raman and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT217
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Shri Prakash Chander Manchanda. his wife and his daughter against the order of the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 14th December, 1971 and the order of the Central Government dated 11th December, 1972. (2) In the writ petition, the petitioner has chosen to add his sister Smt. Chander Kanta as respondent No. 8 and his mother Smt. Basant Kumari as respondent No 9. I am laying so because two ladies were not parties to the proceedings before the Authorities who adjudicated upon the matter. Similarly petitioner's wife and daughter who are petitioners 2 and 3, were again not parties before any of the adjudicating Authority. (3) The facts of the casein brief arc that a quarter No. 22-A, Block J, Lajpat Nagar. New Delhi was allotted to Miss Janki Manchanda (respondent No 7) vide allotment order dated 13th October. 1953. (4) On 23rd October, 1953, Janki Manchanda sent an application ...
H.L. Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi257; 1985(2)SLJ696(Delhi)
A.H.L. Anand, J.(1) These petitions, C.W.P. 462183, by Assistants, and C.W.P. 937 83, by Junior Readers, working in this Court raise a common question as to the entitlement of these categories of employees to higher scale to bring them as par, in the matter of scales of pay, with the Senior Translators and are part of a chain reaction following the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. (2) The following facts and circumstances provide the historical backdrop. The Third Pay Commission set up by the Central Government, to make recommendations inter alia, with regard to the pay and allowances of the Central Government employees submitted its report in March, 1073, setting out its recommendations with regard to various categories of the Central Government employees. The Commission made separate recommendations, in respect of the Union Territories, including Delhi. By virtue, however, of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the staff of this Court was considered outside the scope...
Madura Coats Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC600Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal arising out of and directed against Order-in-Appeal No. C3/3251/81 dated 28-2-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. By this order the appeal filed before her against the Assistant Collector's Order No. S59/47/81-Gr. I(PX) dated 28-9-1981 was rejected.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the M/s. Madura Courts Ltd. Bangalore, (the appellants before us) imported at the port of Madras two consignments of Nylon Filament Yarn from the U.S.A. and filed two bills of entry for clearance of the goods. It was represented by the appellants that the goods would be used in the manufacture of belting ducks which would be ultimately used in the manufacture of belting for machinery. The appellants, therefore, claimed the benefit of customs notification No. 389/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. The Assistant Collector, however, denied the benefit of the notification on the ground that the appellants were licensed to manufacture inter alia belting ducks bu...
Metal Box India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC82Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s. Metal Box India Limited, (hereinafter called the appellants) are the manufacturers of various types of packaging material. During the period 1st March, 1974 to 14th March, 1976, the appellants supplied base paper to M/s.Industrial Packaging for the purpose of manufacturing waxed paper. M/s.Industrial Packaging after manufacturing waxed paper to the extent of 46,557 Kgs. returned the said waxed paper to the appellants after charging conversion charges. The appellants did not pay excise duty on the waxed paper so got manufactured from M/s. Industrial Packaging.Show cause notice was, therefore, served upon the appellants asking them as to why penalty under Rule 173Q should not be imposed and excise duty of Rs. 69,494.56 should not be demanded or realised under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of 65,441.3 Kg. of such waxed paper.2. In reply to the said show cause notice the appellants stated, inter alia, that they had n...
Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. Vs. Shakti Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1985
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT216; 1986(10)DRJ22; 1986RLR1
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This order shall also dispose of Sao No. 143 of 1985, Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. v. Mr. Rakesh Kumar as it arises out of a common order and involve common question of law. The sole question which requires determination in these appeals is whether the notice dated April 19, 1982 served on the appellant/tenant was a 'notice of demand for arrears of rent' within the meaning of the expression used in proviso (a) to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). (2) By means of two separate lease deeds, both dated December 18, 1979, the appellant M/s Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd., took on lease shop Nos. FF-1 and FF-2, Dohil Chambers, 46, Nehru Place, New Delhi on rent- FF-1 from Rakesh Kumar on a monthly rent of Rs. 4071.50 and FF-2 from Shakti Kumar on a monthly rent of Rs. 2600.00 . On November 16, 1982, Rakesh Kumar brought a petition (E-603/82) for eviction of the appellant from the said premises. A similar application (E-619/...
A.M. Chakrabortty Vs. Ved Vrat and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes49; 30(1986)DLT165; 1985(9)DRJ328
(1) Both the above-mentioned revision petitions are directed against order dated 2nd February 1983 of an Additional Sessions Judge discharging the respondents in a police case under Sections 193, 448, 463, 464, 465 & 471, read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code (for short 'PIP').(2) The facts leading to these revision petitions in brief are that Miss Kamla Sen Gupta was the owner of property bearing No. A-5, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. Dr. Ved Vrat-respondent No. I was her tenant in respect of the ground floor of the said property. Miss Kamla Sen Gupta died intestate on 18th December, 1977 leaving behind her brother Arun Kumar Sen Gupta, who was a lunatic and has since died, and four sisters, namely, Smt. Bina Gupta, Smt. Kalyani Sen. Smt. Lalita Ray and Smt. Bani Roy. None of the legal heirs of the deceased was living with her at the time of her death and they were all residing in Calcutta excepting Smt. Bani Roy, who was then living in North Carolina, U.S.A.(3) On 19th February 1...
Facit Asia Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2475Tri(Delhi)
1. Referred as a Revision Application before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue the same now stands transferred to this Tribunal to be heard as an appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Facit Asia Limited, Madras are the manufacturers of the typewriters falling under Tariff Item 33-D of Central Excise Tariff Schedule. These typerwriters are marketed through their distributors namely (1) Forbes and Forbes Limited, Bombay (2) Continental Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta (3) Ciciko Office Machines, Calcutta and (4) Saradha Latham Business Machines Ltd., Madras. The issues which require determination in this case are (i) whether or not the four distributors at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras through whom the appellants route their sales of these typewriters manufactured by them are 'related persons' of the appellants and (ii) which of the two sets of prices viz. the price at which the appellants sell their products to the distributors or the differen...
S.S. International Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT307
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act is directed against a judgment dated 24th February, i983, whereby an application claiming an interim injunction to restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee dated 11th December, 1980 was rejected. The entire dispute harassment of a contract for the supply of 96 M.Ts. of Kishmish. In connection with that contract, a bank guarantee No. 138 of 1980 dated 11-12-1980 issued by the Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was furnished by the contractor (Appellant) to the Union of India. This bank guarantee was for Rs. 3.66.260.00 but it appears that out of this Rs. 24.400.00 covered a different contract and for the purpose of the Kishmish contract, the bank guarantee was for a sum of Rs. 3,41,840.00 . (2) The Kishmish was delivered but according to the Union of India, part of the quantity was found to be unfit for human consumption within the warranty period. According to the plaintiff in the suit, there was no warranty e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »