Delhi Court March 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 9 of about 96 results (0.040 seconds)Roshan Lal Sood Vs. Dev Raj Sawhney and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes927; 28(1985)DLT1; 1985(9)DRJ1; 1985RLR283
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th July, 1984 dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to amend the written statement. (2) These are the facts. The plaintiffs-respondents on 26th May, 1982 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,560.58 paise as arrears of lent for the period from 12th May, 1980 to 30th April, 1982 at Rs. 66.00 per month against the petitioner-defendant. They have alleged that the petitioner was a tenant under Narinder Kumar and Satinder Kumar with respect to a flat on the ground floor of the building bearing Nos. 1819-25 ward No Xv Wazir Singh Street, Pabarganj, New Delhi, that they had purchased the property including the the flat under the tenancy of the petitioner by means of a sale deed dated 5th May, 1980 registered on 12th May, 1980 and by operation of law the petitioner became their tenant at Rs. 66.00 per month. (3) The petitioner in his written statement h...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ravinder Kumar Gupta since Deceased ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT176
S.B. Wad, J. 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the/order of the Small Causes Court, Delhi, (Shri B.N. Chaturvedi) in R.C.A. No. 25 of 1980. Through the said judgment/decree, the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge 1st Class (Shri S.L. Khanna) on 3-5-1976 was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Three preliminary questions are raised by the respondent here. They are :(1) That the appeal was barred by limitation; (2) That the respondent had died on 26-12-1983 and his legal heirs were not brought on record within the prescribed time and the appeal had abated; and (3) That the appeal does not/raise any substantial question of law being a Second Appeal. 2. When the present appeal was filed application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the trial court's judgment was not filed. The the High Court Rules prescribe mandatorily that the certified copy should be filed Along with the appeal memo. On 23-3-1981 when the appeal was admitted this court directed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Morarjee Goculdas Spinning and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT379TriDel
1.The undisputed facts, insofar material, in this proceeding before the Government of India transferred to, and heard by, the Tribunal as if it were an Appeal, pursuant to S. 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter, the Act) are- (a) the Appellant is a manufacturer of textiles. The composite mill owned by the Appellant has three separate departments for spinning, weaving and processing. Yarn manufactured in the Spinning Department is removed/cleared to the Weaving Department where it is woven into cloth. It is then cleared and sent to the Processing Department; (b) in the manufacture of cotton fabrics classifiable under Item 19 of the First Schedule to the Act, the Appellant uses cellulosic spun yarn and cotton yarn (classifiable under Items 18 and 18A of the said Schedule respectively); (c) in terms of Notification No. 132/77, dated 18-6-1977, cellulosic spun yarn and cotton yarn were exempted from the whole of the duty leviable when used for weaving of cotton fabr...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Fabs Vs. Gudiya Exports P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas114(Delhi)
H.L. Anand, J.1. Naresh Bhatia, carrying on a sole proprietary business in the name and style of Naresh Fabs, seeks to wind up Gudiya Exports (P.) Ltd., for short, 'the company', on the grounds of deemed inability of the company to meet the claim of the petitioner for a principle sum of Rs. 90,000 odd and for interest amounting to Rs. 43,000 odd, the commercial insolvency of the company, and even otherwise under the just and equitable clause of section 433 of the Companies Act. 2. Nita Wear was the original petitioner which sought winding up of the company on the ground of the company's deemed inability to meet its claim of Rs. 68,000. In the course of proceedings on that petition, at the stage of show cause, the claim of Nita Wear was settled by the company. During the pendency of the proceedings, Sardari Lal & Sons, claiming to be the creditors of the company, and the present petitioner, in the name of his business style, Naresh Fabs, sought substitution under rule 101 of the Compani...
Tag this Judgment!Villayati Ram Mittal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)ARBLR328(Delhi); 1985(8)DRJ316
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, a contractor, filed this petition under Sections 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act praying that respondent No. 2 who was the Arbitrator, be directed to file his award dated 15-1-1983 and the arbitration proceedings in the court. On notice being issued the Arbitrator filed his award and the proceedings. Notice of the filing of the award was given to the parties. Union of India-respondent No. 1 filed objections and these were registered as is No. 3002/83. These were filed under Sections' 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. (2) On pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : 1.Is the award liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the objection petition 2. Relief. Evidence was directed to be lead by affidavits.(3) It is a speaking award. There was a contract which was awarded to the petitioner-contractor for the work of construction of Load dispatch Centre for N.R.E.B. at Katwaria Sarai. The agreement bears No. CE(2)/EE D.O.I, of 1977-78...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Bhagwan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ688; 28(1985)DLT7
H.C. Goel, J.(1) This is an appeal by Jai Bhagwan, Jai Gopal and JaiParkash against their conviction under section 325 read with section 34 IP Cand section 452/34 Indian Penal Code and the order directing their release on probation on their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 5.000.00 each with one surety each in the like amount for a period of two years to keep peace and to be of goodbehavior. The three appellants were also directed to pay Rs. 500.00 each as costs of the prosecution by the impugned judgment and order of Mr. R.C. Jain,Additional Sessions Judge both dated 20/06/1983. The prosecution case stated in brief is that injured Dayal Dass and his brother Om Prakash Public Witness 6used to reside in house No. 367 village Tihar. All the six accused including the three appellants used to reside in house No, 197 village Tihar, the third or fourth house from the house of Dayal Dass. The five accused, other than Udho Dass accused, are real brothers. The relations between accused person...
Tag this Judgment!Anurag Trading and Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]17ITD415(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri B. Gupta, Accountant Member - In the various grounds in this appeal objection is taken to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the ITO under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)2. The appellant is an investment company. In the assessment year 1979-80 it had distributable income of Rs. 85,294 as worked out by the ITO in his order. In order to obviate the applicability of the provisions of section 104 the assesses-investment company had to distribute 90 per cent of its income as dividends within 12 months immediately following the expiry of the previous year for the assessment year 1979-80. In other words, it was to distribute dividends to the extent of Rs. 76,770 out of the distributable income of Rs. 85,294. Since it distributed dividends to the extent of Rs. 65,700 only, the shortfall worked out by the ITO was at Rs. 11,070 on which tax at the rate of 50 per cent was demanded under the provisions of section 104(1) (a). This was chal...
Tag this Judgment!Synthokem Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT493TriDel
1.The captioned appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 19-8-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay whereby he rejected the appellants' claim for refund of the additional (countervailing) duty of Customs collected by the customs authorities on a consignment of Epichlorohydrine imported by the appellants. The claim for refund was based on Central Excise Notification No. 55/75 which exempted drugs, medicines and drug intermediates from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. The Appellate Collector denied the exemption on the basis that the substance was a versatile chemical whose predominant use was not in the manufacture of drugs.3. We have heard Shri M. Rabindra Nath Tagore, Chartered Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lace Manufacturing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC1060Tri(Delhi)
1. Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants, M/s.Hindustan Lace Manufacturing Corporation Limited on 26.7.1979 and, on inspection of the accounts of the appellants, found the value of excisable goods manufactured by them during the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 had in each year exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs. On adjudication, the Collector held that the turnover during the year 1976-77 was less than Rs. 30 lakhs and, therefore, no duty was payable for the period 19.6.1977 to 31.3.78 but he demanded duty in respect of the goods removed during the period 1.4.1978 to 31.3.1979 and in addition, imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellants preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The order of the Board is dated 20.12.1980. In the order it was noted that during the personal hearing the appellants expressed their willingness to pay duty but prayed for remission of the penalty. On that basis the Board, in deciding the appeal, upheld the order of the Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Nivedita Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT382TriDel
1. The appellants' claim in respect of three Reaction Glass (Jars) Vessels of 100 litres each and three Reaction Glass (Jars) Vessels of 200 litres each for use in Research & Development Unit of the appellants' factory as under heading 70.17/18 CTA as laboratory glassware was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs by his order dated 21-7-82. He ordered assessment under heading 70.21 CTA. In appeal of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by his order dated 18-2-83 upheld the assessment made by the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal to the Tribunal.2. In the grounds of appeal, it has been urged that the appellants Research & Development Unit is recognised as 'Laboratory' by the Department of Science & Technology Government of India. The impact was permitted only on these terms. The lower authorities rejected the appellants' claim on extranuous considerations not tenable in law.3. We have heard Shri G.S. Phadke, C...
Tag this Judgment!