Delhi Court November 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 51 results (0.021 seconds)Puran Chand Laxmi Chand Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)16ITD126(Delhi)
1. The grounds of appeal of the assessee in this appeal are argumentative and the objections taken are not immediately apparent.However, it is seen that the following objections have been taken in effect: (a) The assessment made by the ITO on the assessee for this year (1975-76) on 24-9-1981 is a nullity. (b) The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not quashing the assessment on that ground. (c) The Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in setting aside the assessment, directing the ITO to make it afresh after hearing the assessee.2. We have heard Shri P.N. Chopra, the learned counsel for the assessee as well as Shri J.S. Rao, departmental representative. We were also taken through the orders of the authorities below and the material on record. We would first of all notice the relevant facts.3. Puran Chand Laxmi Chand was the sole proprietary concern of one Puran Chand who died on 24-3-1974. Puran Chand died intestate, leaving behind five legal heirs, namely, Sarbati Devi, his wife, and La...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarla JaIn Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)20ITD713(Delhi)
1. Facts, stated briefly but in the right perspective are that the assessee who has been assessed in the status of a resident-individual filed the return of net wealth, declaring positive net figures of Rs. 4,48,100. This return was filed on 19-7-1977. The return was later on revised and the net wealth declared stood at Rs. 3,40,200. The reasoning for revising the return was as under : (a) Increase in the value of agricultural land as per valuer's report ; (b) Revision of value of shares as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia [1980] 122 ITR 38 ; (d) Taking of correct balances of the assessee with Arvind Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. ; and (e) Claim of exemption under Section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act').The assessment was completed by the learned IAC (Assessment) vide orders dated 26-2-1982.The learned Commissioner, in an action under Section 25(2) of the Act, set aside the assessment since he was satisfied that the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajdhani Paper House Vs. R.K. JaIn Sales and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR54(Delhi); 29(1986)DLT310; 1986RLR85
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) He judgment under appeal was given by a learned single Judge on an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act praying for stay of the suit. The learned single Judge held that there was an arbitration clause and the suit had to be stayed. The arbitration clause in this case was found to exist because of certain clauses in the Constitution and Regulations of the Paper Merchants Association, Delhi (Regd.) Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The said Constitution shows that one of the aims and objects of the Association is to settle the disputes between its members and to arbitrate amongst contesting parties. The power to appoint an arbitrator is given to the Executive Committee under Clause XVI. The particular clause reads as follows: '15. To appoint Arbitrators, Umpires, Appellate Authority for settling disputes between members and members and non-members, and to make rules and regulations governing the proceedings for arbitration, etc. In case of any dispute between members ...
Tag this Judgment!Rishi Electronics Ltd. Vs. Prem Prakash Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ212
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) His Regular First Appeal involved a very short point, so while hearing the stay matter, we decided to admit the appeal and hear it without any paper-book on merits. (2) The plaintiff claimed the recovery of Rs.25,917.00 in the Suit of the basis of the supply of four carpets to the defendant. The price payable was Rs. 23,937.00 for which a cheque was issued by the defendant on 17th January, 1982, which was dishonoured. The defendant did not pay the amount, so the Suit was instituted. An amount of Rs. 1,980.00 was added to the price as interest calculated at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the basis of usage and custom of the trade. (3) The Suit was resisted on the ground that the carpets were defective and not in accordance with the specifications. This was denied in the replication. (4) The final issues framed in the Suit were as follows :- '1. Whether the carpets supplied to the defendant were defective and not according to the specification and requirement of t...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Sham Swat Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR528
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) A question may well be asked as to whether the effect of this Notification does in fact apply to the principle of Damdupat enacted in Section 30 of the Act. The answer to this question depends on how far the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, as modified by Punjab Act Xii of 1940 amends the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, 1928. The purpose of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. 1934, was to give relief to Indebted persons. The Usurious Loans Act, 1918, enables the Court to reduce the interest to be charged on loans in case the same is unreasonably high. The express amendment of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, is contained' in Section 5 of the Act. It states that certain rates of interest in the case of secured and unsecured loans will be deemed to be excessive, but it exempts loans advanced by the State Bank of India and other Banking Companies and also loans advanced by the Co-operative societies. It does not refer to loans advanced by the L.I.C. of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Vati and 5 ors. Vs. Nirmal JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ145
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 10, 1982 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the respondent-mother was declared to be the lawful guardian of her minor son Ashu. (2) The respondent-mother filed a petition on 14.1.1985 under section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act for declaring her to be the guardian of the minor and for the custody of the minor. It was pleaded that she was married to Vipin Kumar Jain on 5,2.1965 at Delhi according to Hindu rites. The marriage was consummated and a son was born on 9.II.1968, and was named Ashu. Her husband died on 4.10.1974 and at the time of his death, she was staying with her father at Shakurbasti, Delhi. She was informed about his death after the funeral ceremony. It was further pleaded that the appellants, i.e. the mother, the brother and sisters of her deceased husband want to deprive her of the custody of her only son Ashu. She pleaded that she was a teacher having ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Jagat NaraIn Gujarati and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT180; 1986(10)DRJ129
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The facts are stated in my order dated 20th September 1985 passed in Criminal Misc. (Main) 1093 of 1985. A copy of that order has already been placed on record.(2) While deciding that petition I suo moto directed issue of a notice to Jagat Narain Gujarati and Smt. Vijay Laxmi who are co-accused in the same case to show cause as to why their bail granted by Shri G.S. Dhaka, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi be not cancelled. It is on account of that notice that the present proceedings are being taken.(3) During the pendency of these proceedings not only counsel for the State urges that the bail should be cancelled on merits but also he has brought to the notice of this court that Jagat Narain Gujarati, respondent No. I is trying to tamper with the evidence by way of threatening two prosecution witnesses, namely, Bhola Shanker and Sudhir Gupta and that, thereforee, that is a good ground for cancellation of the bail. Counsel for the State pointed out that both these witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Cloth Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC735Tri(Delhi)
1. As a common issue is involved in these two appeals and they relate to the same appellants, this common order is passed to dispose of both of them.2. The appeals are directed against the finding of the Collector and the Board that the appellants misdeclared certain cut pieces of superfine cotton fabrics as "rags" and cleared them without payment of duty during the period from 1-3-1970 to 31-5-1971 and that these goods were not bona fide rags but were sound fabrics deliberately cut mostly into 70 cm. long pieces (or blouse pieces) so as to conform to the size criterion laid down in exemption Notification No. 70/69-Central Excises, dated 1-3-1969. The aforesaid lower authorities reached the same conclusion in respect of further 71 bales (out of 105 bales seized on 13-1-1972 in the appellants' factory) of superfine cut pieces. The Collector demanded duty in respect of the goods, imposed penalties totalling Rs. 1.11 lakhs and confiscated the seized 71 bales, giving an option for their r...
Tag this Judgment!East India Hat Co. Vs. Prakash Road Lines (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1986)ACC108; 1986(2)ARBLR39(Delhi); 29(1986)DLT94; 1986(10)DRJ133
G.C. Jain, J. (1) M/S. East India Hat Co., the petitioner, entrusted one wooden case containing caps at Delhi to M/s. Parkash Road lines (P) Ltd., the respondent at Delhi for carriage to Panjim under goods receipt No. 879698 dated March 18, 1974. Alleging that the said goods had not been delivered it filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 600.00 towards the price of the said goods.(2) The respondent filed an application staling that this court bad no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Under the agreement between the parties the courts in Banglore alone bad jurisdiction in respect of claims and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted to for transport. Learned Addl. Judge. Small Cause Court, came to the conclusion that Banglore courts also had jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of the agreement between the parties the suit could be filed at Banglore city alone. The said agreement was binding and consequently the Delhi courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT200
S.B. Wad, J. (1) How far law protects creative aesthetic expression of an artist 7 Is the intellectual property of an artist governed by the game norms as commercial property Where does the freedom (of expression) of the author and, where does the Director begin What is the scope and width of section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957? These are the questions raised in Mannu Bhandari's suit against M/s. Kala Vikas Pictures (Pvt.) Ltd. and its producer and director. Kala Vikas has produced motion picture 'Samay Ki Dhara' under assignment of filming rights of her novel 'Aap Ka Bunty.' Her complaint is of the mutilation and distortion of the novel. She pleads for permanent injunction against its screening and exhibition. Although many authors complain of sueh distortions, few have sought judicial protection. Hence, there is no precedent of any law court to guide the film industry. (2) The trial court has refused an ad-interim restraint order. The appeal is against this order. (3) At the time o...
Tag this Judgment!