Delhi Court February 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 8 of about 76 results (0.009 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jabalpur Oxygen Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT304TriDel
1. The appeal has been filed by the department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi dated 22-11-1982.2. The respondents are manufacturers of oxygen gas falling under TI 14H of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Among others the Respondents had entered into a contract with M/s. Grey Iron Foundry, Jabalpur. The rates for the sale were fixed by the DGS&D and contracts were entered into between the parties. The terms of the contract were revised from time to time and one of the clauses provided for "delivery and collection charges at the rate of Rs. 45/-per 100 cubic Mtrs. to be paid extra as per terms of the rate contract." The respondents filed the price lists on the basis of the revised contract.They did not include this sum of Rs. 45/- in the sales to M/s. Grey Iron Foundry, Jabalpur.3. Two show cause notices were issued on 1-9-1980 one for the period from 1-3-1973 to 29-2-1980 for Rs. 6,126.85 P. and the other for th...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Sales Limited Vs. Mohini Nayyar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT417; 1985(9)DRJ62; 1985RLR333
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 22nd March 1982. (2) These are the facts. M/s. Usha Sales Limited is a tenant in premises No. C-432, defense Colony, New Delhi under Mrs. Mohini Nayyar, the landlady. The landlady in September 1980 made an application to the Additional Controller seeking an order of eviction against the tenant under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) on the ground of her bona fide need of premises. Her main ground was that the premises were let to M/s. Usha Sales for the residence of their officer, Shri J.S. Monga, and since Mr. Monga has gone abroad and left the service of the Company and as the premises were lying vacant, she ought to be granted an order of eviction. She also averred that she was residing in Surrey, U.K. and is working there as a school teacher in Peckham School run by Inner London Educational Authority, County Hall, London. (3) The Landlady's husband di...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Lal Manohar Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]158ITR9(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. This reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1964-65. A reference is sought by the Department regarding the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessment proceeding under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid and illegal in law and thereby cancelling the assessment ?' 2. The Tribunal has refused to make a reference on the ground that no question of law arose. 3. The real point in issue now is whether this controversy regarding the application of section 147(a) of the Act was decided as a question of fact. The circumstances of the case have been narrated in full by the Tribunal. The assessed had certain deposits received from hundi bankers whose addresses and names were disclosed at the time of the original assessment and also confirmatory letters were furnished. The assessment was m...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Nidhi Ltd. Vs. Shital Prasad Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT313
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This order shall dispose of this application of the defendant made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of his written statement. The proposed amended written statement has also been filed along with this application. (2) The plaintiff Bharat Nidhi Limited, a Public Limited Company, has brought the suit against the defendant Shital Prasad Jain for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,85,557 35 on the basis of a promissory note dated 23-12-1974 and the receipt dated 24-12-1974 evidencing the loan amount of Rs 2,00,000.00 . It was vide letter dated 14-12-1974 that the defendant requested the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company for advancing him a loan of Rs. 2,00,000.00 on the company's usual rate of interest and the amount was to be repaid gradually in Installments over a period of about 1' years and the defendant also offered in the said letter to give a demand promissory note for the said amount. The aforesaid loan was sanctio...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumari Vs. Kewal Krishan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi393; 1985RLR384
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) Maintenance, husband takes the wife to his home but no cohabitation occurs the taking her to defeat maintenance right), then husband's right to seek divorce on the plea of no cohabitation may be refused on the ground of lack of bona fides. Provision of S. 9 may be abused and wife should guard herself against ill-conceived and reckless legal advice. Conjugal right explained id park 6. Before considering the merits of this appeal moved by Santosh Kumari against the grant of a decree of divorce against her, reference may be made to C.M. No. 5135 which she has moved u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the certified copy of the impugned judgment. The appeal itself was filed on 31.5.1984 on the basis of an uncertified copy, and the Court allowed her to do so subject to her filing the certified copy within time. This certified copy was filed on 30.11.1984, and there has been a delay of over 100 days, Along with this application, two affidavits h...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Singh, Etc. Vs. Delhi Administration, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT6; ILR1985Delhi835; 1985LabIC967
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) Die appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the seniority list dated 8-5-1978 issued by the Administration of the Union Territory of Delhi and also the promotion orders dated 20th April, 1978 and 20th January, 1979 promoting some of the respondents from Grade-111 to Giade-II of the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Executive) Service. The appellants contended before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition that holding of the examinations for the first time in 1973-74 after the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/ Executive) Service Rules, 1967 had come into force, and allowing all persons to become eligible between the years 1967 to 1974 to appear for filling the posts which arose as far back as 1967-68 was illegal and contrary to Rule 6(3) read with Rule 12 of the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/Executive) Service Rules, 1967. It was contended that the carrying forward of all the vaca...
Tag this Judgment!