Delhi Court April 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 7 of about 71 results (0.021 seconds)Nawab BashirudIn Vs. Mirza Ahmed Beg
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR134
S.B. Wad, J. (1) Plaintiff, Defts, 2 to 4 are sons and daughters of Qamrudin. Deft. 1 sued Deft. 2 and obtained eviction order. Plaintiff'filed objections u/s 25 of Rent Act and then filed suit for injunction claiming that they were cotenants and as they were not imp leaded, eviction order was not binding on them. Trial Court held that it was a case of joint tenancy and plaintiff & (Defts. 3, 4) did not inherit same. He dismissed the suit. After losing 1st appeal, plaintiff filed RSA] After detailing above, judgment proceeds: (2) Only question in 2nd appeal is regarding nature of tenancy and right to inherit tenancy rights from father. Trial Court on the basis of statements made before Rent Controller by the plaintiff in proceedings u/s 25 of Rent Control Act has held that the tenancy was joint. I must say that it is difficult to understand the considerations that weighed with the trial court and his reasoning in this regard Similar is the case regarding the occupation and possession o...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Chand Phool Chand JaIn Vs. Santosh Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC43; 1(1986)ACC263
S.B. Wad, J.1. Deceased Manohar Lal Gupta was a contractor and general order supplier, He was also running tea shop. He was traveling in a car bearing No. DLJ 3675. The car was driven by respondent no 1 Kartar Singh in the Claimant's Petition in the course of his employment with M/s Sagar Chand Phool Chand Jain, Respondent No. 2. The car was going from Najafgarh towards village Nivada. Manohar Lal Gupta was sitting on the rear seat. Two other persons, Shri Tek Chand and Shri Preet were sitting on the front seat with the driver-respondent no. 1. It is found by the Tribunal that the driver was driving at a very high speed and in a reckless manner and while approaching Kakrola bridge hit into the drums on the left side of the road. The driver could not control the vehicle and, thereforee hit it with the tree on the other side. The passengers were seriously injured. Manohar Lal Gupta and other injured were taken to Najafgarh Public Health Centre, where Dr. A.D. Dutta declared Manohar Lal G...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jamal Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2050Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally 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.The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported a consignment of palmolein by the vessel m.v. Nikolay Semashko at Madras Port in 1979. The vessel arrived at the port on 22-2-1979 but, owing to congestion in the port, opted to register arrival under the Registration system and sailed away. She re-arrived at the port on 28-2-1979 and berthed on 2-3-1979. The cargo was discharged thereafter.A Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods for home consumption was filed on 13-3-1979, the duty assessed thereon was paid on 36-3-1979 and the goods cleared thereafter.Later on, the appellants filed an application before the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras claiming refund of the duty paid on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Bhatia Impex (India) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD644(Delhi)
1. The assessee is aggrieved of the order dated 1-8-1981 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow.2 to 6. (These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 7. The next ground relates to the disallowance of the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under Section 35B(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), amounting to Rs. 1,30,349. The assessee claimed to be a small-scale exporter within the meaning of Section 35B(1A) inserted by the Finance Act, 1978, with effect from 1-4-1978. The case of the assessee was that it was a small-scale exporter who maintained a show room for export articles and also made purchases of goods from various karkhanadars who in fact carried on the business as a cottage industry which is a small-scale industry owned by it. However, the ITO did not accept the submission. In appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the ITO. In doing so, he was influenced by the fact that the assessee did not have manufacturing li...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Gupta and Another Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax, New Delhi and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]61STC20(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer within the meaning of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77 ex parte assessments were made by orders dated May 7, 1980, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 11, Vikas Bhavan, New Delhi, under section 23 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act and under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with section 23 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The petitioner filed appeals and the only point urged was that the Sales Tax Officer has proceeded to make ex parte assessments without dealing with the application for adjournment sent by the assessed by registered AD post and indeed by ignoring it. The assessed's case was that its authorised representative was unwell and so, could not attend the hearing fixed for May 5, 1980. He had applied for adjournment in time but without dealing with his application the Sales Tax Officer proceeded to make ex parte assessments...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Dass JaIn Vs. A.G.F.R. and S. Consumers Cooperative Stores Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT149; 1986RLR26
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') by the decree-holder is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th April, 1984 accepting the objections of the respondent-judgment debtor. (2) Briefly these are the facts. On appeal by the petitioner, the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 22nd February, 1980 passed a decree for recovery of Rs. 7.750.00 with costs of the suit and appeal and interest at 15 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till payment in favor of the petitioner against the respondent. The judgment debtor-respondent failed to pay the decretal amount. The petitioner took out execution wherein on 14th January 1981 a compromise was arrived at between the decree-holder and the judgment debtor whereby the judgment debtor agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 by monthly Installment of Rs. 1.000.00 . The first Installment was payable at the time of recording of compromise by the court and the second Inst...
Tag this Judgment!Y.R. Puri Vs. S.C. Mittal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT39; 1986(10)DRJ59
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated November 16, 1984 passed by Shri R. K. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissing an application of the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a pending eviction petition filed by respondent No. 1 (landlord). (2) There was an earlier petition for eviction of the petitioner (tenant) filed on March 1, 1977 on grounds under Section 14(1)(a}(c) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A question arose in that petition as to the claim of deductions and adjustments by the petitioner herein on account of annual white washing, painting, repairs etc. The Rent Control Tribunal in its order dated October 18, 1978 directed that the claim of the petitioner would be decided by the Rent Controller after taking evidence of the parties. That petition was subsequently withdrawn. (3) The ...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Paper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC107Tri(Delhi)
1. The questions that arise for consideration in this Revision Application to the Government of India, transferred to and heard by the Tribunal, pursuant to Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act, for short) are- (a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant and M/s. Sun Distributors and Mining Co. Ltd., said to have been appointed by the Appellant as their del-credre agent (hereinafter, referred to as M/s. Sun) are "related persons" and, accordingly, the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant is the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold by the aforesaid M/s. Sun in the course of wholesale trade, in terms of the third proviso to Section 4(1) (a) of the Act (b) Whether the Appellant allowed any, and if so what, trade discount and if such discount has to be excluded from the computation of the assessable value in accordance, with Section 4(4) (d) (ii) of the Act (c) Whether the Appellant is entitled to exclusio...
Tag this Judgment!Vidharbha Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1966Tri(Delhi)
1.In respect of goods falling under Tariff Item 68-C.E.T. manufactured by the appellants, M/s. Vidharbha Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. they were availing of the exemption under Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979. But notice dated 14-7-1980 was received by them that they were not entitled to benefit under the said notification and action was, therefore, proposed to be taken in that regard. They sent reply claiming benefit of the notification. On adjudication the Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur passed the order dated 7-10-1980 holding that they were not entitled to benefit under the said notification. The said order was confirmed on appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs under order dated 13-3-1981. The Revision Petition against the same to the government has been received on transfer and is being disposed of as an appeal before this Tribunal.2. We have heard Shri C.L. Beri, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri K.D. Tayal, Senior Departmental Representative, for the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Ajanta Cements Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1876Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts in brief are that the appellants started manufacturing the product known as 'Plastwel' some time in the year 1982, but they did not obtain any Central Excise licence under the belief that it would be covered under Tariff Item No. 68 and exempted. On 28-4-1983, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ranchi, issued a show cause notice C.No. V(23)(15)29/83/2990 to the appellants, alleging inter alia that they had contravened the provisions of Rules 174, 9, 52-A, 226, 173-B, 173-C, 173-F and 173-G of Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as they had manufactured and removed a variety of cement known as 'Plastwel' falling under Tariff Item No. 23(2)-C.E.T. without having proper licence in form L-4 and without fulfilling other formalities under the various provisions of the Central Excise Law. It was alleged in the notice that the party had removed 232 bags each containing 50 kg. of 'plastwel' (cement) during the period from 13-8-1982 to 25-3-1983 valued at Rs. 68,059.08 inv...
Tag this Judgment!