Delhi Court December 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 57 results (0.021 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC281Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute in this case is on the method of calculation of average production of sugar for the purpose of grant of the Central Excise Duty Concession (commonly called incentive rebate for higher production) in terms of the exemption notification No. 132/82-C.E., dated 21-4-1982.In order to facilitate the understanding of the controversy, we reproduce this notification below :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Finance Act, 1982 (14 of 1982), the Central Government hereby exempts sugar, described in column (1) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty of excise and special duty of excise leviable thereon as is specified in the corresponding entry in columns (2) and (3) of the said Table.-----------------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Lalson Machines Vs. Sachar Eandm Stores
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)ARBLR132(Delhi); 1986RLR165
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) Mr. Aggarwal had referred to a Division Bench decision of this court in Swaran Singh vs. Usha Industries (India) and another, F.A.C (OS) No. 156/1984, decided on 18.11.1985, wherein question of delay was considered. It was said that delay in the matter of seeking an injunction might be a ground for refusing an injunction in certain circumstances, but in the case where there is a statutory right based on the provisions of the Act and excusive right is granted thereby by registration to the holder of the registered trade mark, the statutory right cannot be lost by delay. (2) Various contentions raised by the defendant would be tried during the course of the trial of the suit but prima facie it appears to me that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of temporary injunction. There is a valid trade mark registered in the name of the plaintiff and its rights are, thereforee, to be protected during the pendency of those proceedings. Moreover, as submitted by Mr. Agg...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Shanker Shnkia Vs. Anand Prakash
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ191
(1) Delhi Rent Control Act - S. 14(1)(c) and S. 25(b)(f)-The word required', used in clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act-, means that there must be an element of need. The mere wish or desire is not sufficient. At the same time, absolute necessity has not to be proved, only reasonable necessity has to be made out. The question of availability of a reasonably suitable accommodation with the landlord has to be Judged keeping in view the number of his family members, his social status and other relevant considerations....
Tag this Judgment!Management of Dtc Vs. Bir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR471]; (1994)IIILLJ837Del
Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. Balbir Singh respondent No. 2 was employed as a Conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation. On 18th September, 1967 a check was conducted at Paharganj Dispensary by S/Shri Mohd. Akbar, T.I. and Sant Ram, A.T.I, who found that respondent No. 2 had not issued tickets to a group of two passengers who had boarded the bus at Pusa Road and alighted at Paharganj Dispensary without tickets even though a sum of 20 Paise instead of 40 Paise had been collected by respondent No. 2 from the said two passengers. Respondent No. 2 was challenged on the same day and thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to him for non-issuance of tickets to a group of two passengers and was directed to tender his Explanationn within 10 days of the receipt of the charge-sheet. Thereafter an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation who gave his report on 4th November, 1969 holding respondent No. 2 guilty of charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. On the basis of the inqu...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwari Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes163; 29(1986)DLT261
H.C. Goel, J.1. This is an appeal by Parmeshwari Lal, appellant, against his conviction under Section 161 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentence of one year's RI under Section 161 IPC and 15 months' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short 'the act'). The Prosecution case stated in brief is that Smt. Sharda Devi Mahadevan (PW 3) used to carry on business in the name of India Commercial Corporation at A-15 Green Park, New Delhi- 1100016. She used to reside at 122, Golf Links, New Delhi. She made the Telex machine at her residence 122,Golf Links, New Delhi. She made the payment of Rs. 2285/- as per the demand note issued to her on October 26,1973 (Ex. PW 3/13). On January 18, 1974 Parmeshwari Lal, appellant, and Banwari Lal (DW 2), Engineering Supervisor, Telex (Out-door) inspected the premises and gave approval for insta...
Tag this Judgment!Jitender Kumar Vs. Krishan Chopra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR188
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a petition filed by Sh. Jitender Kumar Jauhar, landlord, for quashing an order dated 18.1.85 whereby the learned Additional Controller, after noticing the objections which were filed in execution of an order dated 26.4.79 passed u/s 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 'the Act' held that the objections to the execution application u/s 21 of the Act cannot be decided without evidence and directed that the evidence of the objector be produced on 12.4.85. (2) The petition itself has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alias on the ground that the objections filed by the tenant did not make out fraud and/or collusion or any plea open in execution to the executability of the order within the test laid down by Krishna lyer, J. in S. B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna . and as explained and law laid down by Tulzapurkar, J in J.R. Vohra v. M/s India Export House 1985 (1) RCJ. 368 (3) To appreciate the submissions of learned counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Kishore Binal Vs. Avinash Nayyar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT417
G.C. Jain, J.(1) On June 1,1962 Dr. Beli Ram (Since deceased) Jet out the premises in dispute, i.e. 167 Golf Link, Mew Delhi to Smt. Abinash Kaur (Since deceased) on a monthly rent of Rs. 14007-. On January 22, 1963, he filed a petition for recovery-of the possession of the said premises on the allegations that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent since September 1, 1962. Later on, by way of amendment the eviction was also claimed under clause ( J) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the act'). This petition was admittedly dismissed and there is no challenge to that order in this appeal. (2) In the written statement the tenant, however, had prayed for fixation of the standard rent. He also moved a separate application dated March 25, 1963, for fixation of the standard rent as well as the interim rent. It was averred that the costs of the construction of the premises was not more than Rs. 50.000.00 in 1956-57 and the price o...
Tag this Judgment!Shameshwar Prasad Bhargava and ors. Vs. Kulwant Rai Jam and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT331; 1986(10)DRJ245
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This order shall also dispose the connected appeal No. 404/79 (S.C. Bhargam v. Kulwant Rai Jain and others) as both the appeals arise out of a common order.(2) The dispute is in respect of a portion of property No. 4754-4755, Darya Ganj, Ansari Road, Delhi. These premises were admittedly let out to Dr. Shameshwar Prasad Bhargava (hereinafter to be referred 'tenant in March/April, 1959). (3) On 9/5/1969 Kulwant Rai Jain brought a petition for recovery of possession of the said premises on the allegations that the tenant, without obtaining his consent in writing, had sub let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the various portions of the premises in dispute in favor of M/s. Bhargava & Associates, Dr. H.D. Goyal and Kishore Corporation. The eviction was also claimed on the grounds under clauses (c), (j) and (g) of the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for Short the Act'). These grounds were, however, not pressed...
Tag this Judgment!J.N. Luthra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)16ITD172(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals. They were heard together for disposal by this common order.2. The assessee is an individual. He was the chairman and managing director of a joint sector undertaking and was posted in Delhi in that capacity during the relevant previous year. He was residing, during the said previous year, at C-II-67, Bapa Nagar, a Government flat. This flat had been allotted to his wife in her capacity as a senior officer of the Indian Council of Medical Research.3. The assessee was also the owner during the previous year, of a flat at 151, Golf Links, New Delhi (first floor of a two storeyed building).This flat was kept unoccupied by him throughout the previous year though it was in a state fit for occupation. Apart from this flat which he owned, the assessee had one-half share in the rental income derived from a flat in a multi-storeyed building (flat No. 204, 53-54, Nehru Place, New Delhi). The other one-half share of that was of the assessee's wife. The first issue that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sneh Lata Vs. Kewal Kishan Seth
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR200
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directed against the judgment and decree of divorce dated 7.1.83 of the Add. District Judge, Delhi. The parties were married on 8,9.73. A son was born out of this wedlock on 18.1.75. On 3.10.78 the respondent-husband filed a petition u/s 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The trial court negatived the ground of cruelty but passed a decree of divorce on the ground that the wife had deserted the husband for a continuous period of two years. The wife has filed this appeal. The finding regarding alleged cruelty is not challenged by the respondent-husband. (2) The husband in his divorce petition has alleged that on 31.7.75 he reached home after attending office and found his wife was not there. He made enquiries from his mother. She told him that the wife had left telling that the husband was waiting for her at Vivek Cinema and that they both h...
Tag this Judgment!