Delhi Court March 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.
Delhi Development Authority Vs. New Friends Co-operative House Buildin ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi390; 28(1985)DLT203; 1985RLR336
ORDER8 Rule 10-Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by court :-Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up.' '...
Peoples Union for Democraticrights and anr. Vs. Ministry of Home Affai ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi268; ILR1987Delhi235
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) Following English American decisions, our Supreme Court has, of late admitted exceptions from the strict rules relating to locus; standi and the like in the case of a class of litigations which have acquired classification known as 'Public interest litigation', that is. where the public in general are interested in the enforcement of fundamental rights and other statutory rights. (2) The litigation may be initiated by public spirited organization on behalf of persons belonging to socially and economically weaker sections complaining of violation of their human rights. (3) Present writ petition has also been filed by two such organizations namely. People Union for Democratic Rights, through its Secretary, Dr. Sudesh Vaid ana Peoples Union for Civil Liberties. (4) Today it is perhaps common place to observe that as a result of a series of judicial decisions since about 1950 both in the Supreme Court and the High Courts in India, House of Lords and the Court of Appe...
Mam Chand and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ112; 1985RLR240
J.D. Jain, J.(1) In this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') the petitioners seek quashing of proceedings in Case No. 5/84-J-Criminal-l styled State v. Mam Chand etc. under Section 107/150 to the Code. (2) The property bearing No 784 which is a four storeyed quarter situated at Raghbir Nagar, New Delhi, is the bone of contention between the petitioners and respondents 5 to 10. From a perusal of the record of the aforesaid case it would appear that security proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Code were initiated by respondent No. 2 who is an Assistant Commissioner of Police with powers of Executive Magistrate at Moti Nagar, on the basis of a Kalendra submitted to him by Rajouri Garden police on 31st December 1983. According to the said Kalendra which in turn is founded on daily diary entry No. 9 of the same date made by Si Teja Singh, Jagat Singh-respondent No. 7 reported to him while he was present in Janta Colony that the house in questio...
Grafik India Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Del)57; [1986]159ITR528(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us the following question for the assessment year 1971-72 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no appeal lies against an order under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. It may be mentioned that the facts given in the statement of the case are far from clear, but we think the referred question can be answered as it is without asking for any further statement. According to the Income-tax Officer's order dated December 31, 1973, the declaration under section 184(7) was filed in the office on January 5, 1972. According to the Income-tax Officer, this was belated as it was filed after the period allowed by proviso (ii) to section 184(7). The Income-tax Officer gave a show-cause notice as to why continuation of registration be not refused. In reply to this, the assessed claimed that the facts mentioned in the notice were wrong and it denied that For...
Chowgule Matrix Hobs Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1985
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT513TriDel
1. The appellants; namely, M/s Chowgule Matrix Hobs Ltd., on importation of a machine described as : One No. KOEPFER RELIEF GRINDING MACHINE, TYPE 230 S.No. 11457, claimed clearance thereof at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 40/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978, and also its clearance against Open General Licence (OGL for short) by virtue of Entry: Serial No. 24, Appendix I, Part B, in Vol. 1 of the Import Policy for AM 1964-85. A Bill of Entry to that effect was filed on 20-7-1984, but Customs authorities declined to accept the claim for concessional rate of customs duty, as filed, as also for clearance under the OGL. A notice to show cause was thereupon issued on 17-8-1984, conveying tentative view of the Department to the effect that the machine imported by the party was a multiple-purpose one and was not exclusively used for grinding of hobs, so as to be treated as a hob-grinder within the meaning of the Entry Serial No. 24 of Appendix I, Part B of AM Policy for 1984-85, no...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prem Singh and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR434(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. The questions sought to be referred by this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,704 made by the Income-tax Officer as income of the assessed from undisclosed sources on amount of the difference in the position of stock as disclosed by the books of account and as shown in the account of stock hypothecated with the bank 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in taking note of the additional evidence before it which was sought to be placed by the assessed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who did not allow the same in view of rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in its observation that it is ...
E.M. and E.M. Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT330; 1985(9)DRJ43
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Shri C. Banerjee, Superintending Engineer, Circle Iii Delhi Development Authority was appointed the sole arbitrator by the Engineer Member, D.D.A. vide his letter dated 10th August, 1983 under the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties, with reference to the agreement for the construction of Asian Games Village Complex at Siri Fort Area, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The learned arbitrator entered upon the reference, called upon the parties to file the statement of claim, the counter-claim and after affording them the opportunity of leading evidence made and published his award of 30th day of March, 1984. The learned arbitrator filed the award and the proceedings in this court on 19-4-1984. On the same day Shri A.P. Aggarwal Advocate accepted the notice of the filing of the award on behalf of the petitioner M/s. Em and Em Associates. The respondents were duly served with the filing of the award and within the stipulated period filed the objections under sections 30 an...
B.R. Dewan and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi416
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) C.W.P. 1404183 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the act of the respondents in filling up the post of Director of Logistics Support in the Naval Headquarters from amongst the Service Officers of the Indian. Navy instead of from amongst the eligible Civilian Officers of Naval Stores Organisation under the Navy (Civilian Gazetted Stores Officers Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1979. Subsequent to the filling of the said petition the Government appointed Commodore Vasant Ganapath Rao, Hannovar as Director of Logistics Support. C.W.P. 2212/83 was then filed by the petitioners praying for a writ of quo-warranto against the respondents to show under what authority respondent No. 4 could be anointed to the post of Director of Logistics Support. This order will dispose of these two petitions. (2) In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the Navy (Class I Gazetted Posts) Recruitment...
Mrs. Sheela Sumbaly and Mrs. Neela Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1985
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT857TriDel
1. These four appeals arise out of common facts and were, therefore, heard together. The appellant in Appeal Nos. 6/82 and 159/83 is Mrs.Sheela Surabaly and the appellant in Appeal Nos. 8/82 and 158/83 is Mrs. Neena Raina. (i) On 3-11-1981 during the course of a raid by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate the residential premises of Mr. V. K. Raina were searched. On enquiry Mrs. Neena Raina gave reference to lockers in the name of Mr. Raina and the Officers were taken by her to the locker section of the Bank of Baroda in Greater Kailash Pt. I. The locker jointly in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Raina was then opened by Mrs. Raina and a search of the contents thereof disclosed, amongst other things, 10 gold bars of 10 Tolas each bearing foreign marks. The locker was sealed and the key was taken away by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate. The next day (4-11-1981) the locker was again opened by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and they took possession o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagdamba Charity Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR157(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. In the case of the present reference under sections 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which relates to the assessment year 1972-73, the question referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that capital gains tax was not livable and in excluding the capital gains for assessment ?' 2. The facts of the case show that the assessed had made a small profit from the sale of investments but on an examination of the case, the Income-tax Officer found that sales of ordinary and deferred shares of Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. was shown to be at the rate of Rs. 11 and Rs. 1.10, respectively, and the transferor and the transferee of the shares were also interconnected being connected with Shri R. Dalmia. He was also of the view that the shares have been changing hands on the sweet will Of Shri Dalmia. The correct price of the shares was worked out at Rs. 67.43 for ordinary shares and Rs. 6.74 for deferred shar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »