Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 5 of about 108 results (0.019 seconds)Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. C.P. Modi and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]157ITR492(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. These references (Nos. 39 and 40 of 1977 and 56 of 1983) under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi. The common point in these references is concerned with the manner in which a deduction has to be made under section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is differently framed in the case of M/s. C. P. Modi & Sons and M/s. O. P. Modi & Sons from that in Seth Vinay Kumar Modi's case, but the facts of the three cases are common. The assessment year in all the three cases is 1969-70. 2. There are two companies, M/s. Modi Industries Ltd. and M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. In the case of each of these companies, a provisional certificate was granted by the Income-tax Officer indicating how much of the dividend was to be distributed without deduction of tax in each case. The certificate stated in the case of M/s. Modi Industries Ltd., that no amount of tax should be deducted under sect...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ932; 1986RLR41
H.L. Anand, J. (1) The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Ajay Kumar, raises the question as to the validity and propriety of appointment of an Advocate of an aggrieved party as a Special Public Prosecutor in a Criminal trial. The following facts provide the backdrop.(2) Ajay Kumar, petitioner and certain other persons are facing trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on charges, inter alia, of murder of Mukesh on October 6, 1982 in the Palika Bazar Market. The aggrieved party who are said to be 'rich, well-connected and influential', had engaged Bawa Gurcharan Singh, an eminent criminal lawyer, as their counsel to oppose the plea of the accused persons for bail as also to assist the prosecution in the conduct of the eventual trial. By a notification of May 5, 1983, Delhi Administration appointed Bawa Gurcharan Singh aforesaid as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case on behalf of. Delhi Administration at a professional 'fee of Re. ...
Tag this Judgment!Daljit Sawhney Vs. Jagtar Singh Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1985)ACC257; [1988]63CompCas452(Delhi); 1985RLR470
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by the LR's of deceased Sardar Amarjit Singh Sawhney for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 14,834.00 while the claimants had claimed the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.00. The deceased Amarjit Daljit Sawhney vs. Jagtar Singh, etc. Singh was 28 years old at the time of the accident. He had completed the I.T.I. Certificate Course and was working as a Fitter. He had received a certificate of best craftsman in 1965. His salary at the time of the accident was Rs. 350.00, He is survived by his widow and one child. (2) Respondent 1, was the Driver of the vehicle belonging to Respondent 2. Respondent 3 is the Insurance Co. On 18.1.1968 at about 7 P.M. the deceased was attending to his work at the back side of Gokhley market near the workshop of Aya Singh within the limits of Police Station, Subzimandi, Delhi. Respondent 1, Jagtar Singh, who was driving truck No. DLG-5945...
Tag this Judgment!Sheila Puri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ180
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) We had issued a show cause notice in thin Writ Petition As only a short point was involved, we decided to issue Rule D.B., and proceed to decide the case. (2) The only point involved is whether the retirement age of the petitioner is 58 or 60. The answer to this depends on various resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and on some other circumstances. (3) The petitioner was Headmistress of the Girls Middle School, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, at the time the school was taken over by the Directorate of Education, Delhi, on 15th July, 1957. On 2nd September, 1960, she became an Inspectress of Schools along with four others; she was placed at No. 2 on the seniority list, but on a representation she was treated as seniormost. She was lowered in seniority on a representation by one Mrs. O.K. Singh. The school had been placed under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the seniority dispute was decided on a reference to the Director of Education, Delhi. (4) The ...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1507
H.C. Goel, J.1. These are three appeals arising out of two cases. Cr. A. 200/76 by . Behari Lal and Cr. A. 2-46/76 by Om Prakash arise out of one and the same case. Cr. A. 247/76 by Om Prakash appellant arises out of another case under the Arms Act. The prosecution case in the main case being FIR No. 212 dt. April 21, 1975 of Police Station Mandir Marg briefly stated is that on April 21, 1975 at about 5.00 PM Praveen Kumar (PW 1) was studying on the lawns of Ravindra Rangshala. He is a student and was preparing for his examinations there. Vijay Kumar (PW 3), another student was also studying at some distance from Praveen Kumar. The three accused namely, Behari Lal, Om Prakash, appellants, and their co-accused Kishan Lal approached Praveen Kumar. Om Prakash asked Praveen Kumar as to what was the time by his watch. This was only a pretext on the part of the accused persons. Immediately thereafter Om Prakash showed a knife to Praveen Kumar and took him to the nearby bushes. All the three ...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Saini Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1263
ORDERJ.D. Jain, J.1. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as a' Captain (substantive) in 17th Sikh Regiment of Indian Army and he was posted at Ferozepur Cantt. He was tried by a General Court-martial (for short the 'GCM') on a charge under Section 3(i)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the allegation that he had committed a civil offence between July 1981 and Aug. 1981 for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State by communicating secret information relating to the affairs of the State to one Harinder Singh Walia and the said information might be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy. He was found guilty of the said offence by the GCM and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and dismissal from service on 26th Aug. 1982. However, under orders from the General Officer Commanding XI Corps (for short 'the GOC), the sentence awarded to him earlier was revised by the GCM on 30th S...
Tag this Judgment!Super Traders Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC182Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture stainless steel utensils out of imported stainless steel obtained from Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India. They also purchase stainless steel sheets/strips from M/s.Ahmedabad Advance Mills. Further, they purchase stainless steel flats from M/s. V.I.S.L. Bhadravati and convert the same into cold rolled stainless steel strips mainly from M/s. T.K. Steel Industries (P) Ltd., on payment of labour charges. They were enjoying the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 176/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 as amended.2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that they produced certain excisable goods without licence between 18-6-1977 and 31-3-1979 removed the goods evading Central Excise Duty payable thereon, fradulently availing the exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty under Notification No. 176/77. This allegation was based on the alleged fact that the excisable goods cleared by the appellants during the financial yea...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Grover Vs. D.D. Grover
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)ARBLR21(Delhi); 1985RLR449
J.D. Jain, J. (1) Ved Raj and D.D. Grover were brothers. They were jointly doing some businesses etc. since 1967. Ved Raj died on 17.1.78 leaving behind mother, wife and a daughter. Widow and daughter filed arbitration cases u/s 20 against surviving partner (brother) on the basis of arbitration clause in partnership deeds. 2 married sisters were joined as parties on their application u/0. 1 R. 10, CPC. On 8.4.80, parties jointly requested appointment of Shri I.D. Dua (Retired) as arbitrator. They also agreed that widow & daughter would be paid by D.D. Grover Rs. 3000.00 p.m. for using factory premises. Arbitrator entered upon reference on 27.8.80 and as he could not conclude within 4 months, parties jointly got time extended u/s 28. Last extention expired on 31.3.82, Petitioners applied for extention. D.D. Grover did not join them and instead applied for removal of arbitrator and revocation of reference on the plea that proceedings were being protracted and arbitrator was acting beyond...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Box Co. Vs. Munshi Lal Abhinandan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT272; 1985(9)DRJ151; 1985RLR408
Sultan Singh, J.(1) M/S. Munshilal Abhinandan Kumar plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7500.00 on account of price of goods alleged to have been supplied to the defendant-petitioner. During the course of evidence a receipt dated 7-7-1983 for Rs. 671.50 alleged to have been executed by Mr. S.K. Jain, on behalf of the plaintiff in favor of defendant was proved by Sardari Lal defendant appearing as D.W. I and it was marked as Exh. D.W. 1/2. On 3-5-1983 when this witness was being cross-examined, the counsel for plaintiff pointed out that the receipt was unstamped and thereforee it could not have been exhibited. The trial court by order dated 3-5-83 de-exhibited the receipt and marked it as 'B'. On 9-5-83 the defendant filed an application under Order 47, Rule 1, Order 18 Rule 10 & 11 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code pointing to the Trial Court that on 3-5-83 counsel for defendant was not present though his presence had been recorded, that the order de-exhibiting rec...
Tag this Judgment!Renu Vij Vs. Surinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi33; 1985(9)DRJ323
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The short question of law raised in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the scope of the words 'the parties to the marriage last resided together' as used in Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, giving territorial jurisdiction to the Court. (2) The respondent (husband) brought a petition before the District Judge, Delhi for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia), (ib) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Agra on May I, 1980 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is alleged in the petition that after the marriage, the husband brought the petition herein (wife) in Doli by bus from Agra to Delhi to his matrimonial home, that the husband tried for sexual intercourse with the wife but the wife refused and that the husband came to know from her abnorma...
Tag this Judgment!