Delhi Court August 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 75 results (0.019 seconds)Sharbati Devi Jhalani Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi-vii, and O ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Del)85; ILR1985Delhi651; [1986]159ITR549(Delhi); 1986RLR115
Kirpal, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this and in the connected writ petitions is with regard to the manner of valuation of the unquoted equity shares of companies, other than investment companies and managing agency companies, for the purposes of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. The petitioner is one of the shareholders of M/s. Gedore Tools (I) P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). This company belongs to, what is known as 'Jhalani Group'. In respect of the assessment year 1979-80, with which the present writ petition is concerned, the petitioner had filed her return of wealth. In the said return, the Value of the shares of the company was shown at Rs. 232.48, per share, the face value of each share being Rs. 100. This valuation had been made in accordance with rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules and a certificate of a registered valuer was enclosed therewith. The petitioner held 9,800 equity shares of the said company and the total value of the shares so d...
Tag this Judgment!Randhir Singh and ors. Vs. Director of Revenue Intelligence
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1208; 1985(9)DRJ218; 1985RLR548
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to the above mentioned petitions succinctly are that acting on a prior information, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, intercepted two trucks bearing registration Nos. CHW-4831 and HRN-2341, which had arrived from Junagarh (Gujarat) at Kapashera Terminal Tax Post, Delhi and recovered assorted textiles of foreign origin wholly or mainly made of synthetic yarns. The textiles were recovered from underneath the bags of onions loaded in the above-mentioned two trucks. Mal Singh-respondent in Criminal Revision No. 131/85 was driving truck No. HRN-2341 while one Harbans Singh was driving vehicle No. CHW-4831. Some other persons, namely, Mohan Lal @ Sona, Rajender Parkash Sharma, Jagdish Singh etc. were also present in those trucks. However, the occupants of the aforesaid trucks could not produce any evidence documentary or otherwise showing lawful import, acquisition, possession etc. of the goods of foreign origin mentioned a...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ261; 1985RLR556
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Vijay Kumar and 8 others (life convicts) have challenged the legality and virus of their continued imprisonment in Tihar Jail after their transfer from the Borstal Jail at Faridkot. (2) We shall here briefly notice the facts of the case of each petitioners. 1.Vijay Kumar Vijay kumar was tried for an offence Under Section 302 read With Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to life imprisonment on 26th November, 1976. Vijay Kumar at the time of the commission of the offence was 18 years old. Vijay Kumar was transferred to the Borstal Jail at Faridkot on 11th March, 1977 and be was transferred back to Tihar Jail Delhi on 31st January, 1980. 2. Dalip Singh Chand : Dalip Singh was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first charge, rigorous imprisonment for 4 years on the...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Ram Kishore Mahant Vs. Ram Kishan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ157
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this appeal against two orders of even date viz. 15th July 1983 of an Additional District Judge, Delhi, succinctly are that way-back, in January 1971 the appellant describing himself as Swami Ram Kishore, Head Mahant, Shahpura (Rajasthan) instituted a suit against the respondent for mandatory and perpetual injunction on the allegations that a portion of property bearing municipal No. 4 situated in Commissioner's Lane, Civil Lines. Delhi, commonly known as 'Ram Dwara' was let out to the respondent. The demised premises consisted of two rooms and an open verandah in front thereof. The monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 20.00 only. Sometime before the institution of the suit the respondent unlawfully converted the aforesaid open verandah into a regular room by enclosing it from all sides and fixing doors and windows in the walls. The Said construction, according to the plaintiff/appellant, had been made unauthorisedly without his permission. So...
Tag this Judgment!Chaukria Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC196Tri(Delhi)
1. By the present application the applicant prays for dispensing with pre-deposit of central excise duty of Rs. 55,465.57p.2. We have heard Smt. Archna Wadhwa, Advocate in support of the application and Smt. V. Zutshi, SDR, for the non-applicant in opposition. The points urged by Smt. Wadhwa are that the duty demand relates to period 1.8.1980 to 6.4.1981, i.e. withdrawal of Notification No. 75/67 dated 20.5.1967 till the concession was restored by Notification No. 103/81-C dated 6.4.1981 amending the original notification No. 206/63-C dated 30.11.1963. In this connection, direction dated 16th November, 1984 under proviso to Rule 56A(3)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, had been issued by Government of India for according proforma credit to manufacturers. Earlier the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the Additional Collector for decision in accordance with the direction of Government {supra). The Additional Collector even then persisted in confirming the demand. Show cause notice ...
Tag this Judgment!K.L.R. Puri Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT436; 1986RLR274
D.K. Kapar, J. (1) As a short point is involved, we issue Rule Db and proceed to decide the petition. A notice to show cause was issued in this case. Certain objections were filed by the petitioner relating to the house tax claiming that the house tax should be calculated on the basis of the standard rent. Apparently, this was not accepted by the Ndmc, which proceeded to fix the value on the basis of Section 9(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. As held by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh v. Mcd : [1985]152ITR388(SC) the Committee should fix the standard rent in accordance with law. In case the data is not sufficient, it has to determine the standard rent on the basis of such data as collected by itself. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that data is sufficient. But, we refuse to make any comment about this question. (2) It was also urged that the alternative remedy by way of appeal should have been exercised by the petitioner and we should refuse to exercise...
Tag this Judgment!M.T.R. Power Vs. R.K. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)Crimes275; 29(1986)DLT98; 1985(9)DRJ241
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code' is directed against an order dated 27th October, 1984 of Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) The petitioner, Mrs. M.T.R. Power is wife of late Shri S.L. Powar. The petitioner is an architect. Her husband was also an architect. During the life time of her husband, both the petitioner and her husband were carrying on the profession of architect jointly. They were assessed to incometax. The income tax authorities found some default in respect of their income relating to the assessment year 1972-73. Hence the department filed a complaint in March 1976 for prosecution of the petitioner and her husband under the provisions of Sections 277 and 278 of the Income-Tax. The complaint remained pend ing without much action and in the meantime in 1978 the husband of the petitioner died, with the result that the petitioner alone became the accused. The income-tax depart...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. M.T.R. Powar Vs. R.K. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]165ITR119(Delhi)
G.R. Luthra, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') is directed against an order dated October 27, 1984, of Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. 2. The petitioner, Mrs. M.T.R. Powar, is the wife of late Shri S. L. Powar. The petitioner is an architect. Her husband also was an architect. During the lifetime of her husband, both the petitioner and her husband were carrying on the profession of architects, jointly. They were assessed to income-tax. The Income-tax Authorities found some default in respect of their income relating to the assessment year 1972-73. Hence, the Department filed a complaint in March, 1976, for prosecution of the petitioner and her husband under the provisions of Sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act. The complaint remained pending without much action and in the meantime in 1978, the husband of the petitioner died, with the result that the petitioner alone became the accused. The Income-...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Vs. Virender Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR570
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This is a tenant's appeal from the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 18.2.82. It was filed on 6.7.85. It being barred by time the appellant has also filed an application (CM 1908/85) for condensation of delay. (2) The dispute is in respect of a shop No. Wz 67 (New No. 2252) Raja Park, Shakur Basti. It was let out to the appellant by Sohan Lal (since deceased) on 5.6.64. On 13.12.76 the landlord brought an application for recovery of the possession of the said shop u/s 14(1)(a), (c), (f) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). (3) The petition was resisted. In those proceedings an order u/s 15(1) of 'the Act' was made on 26.10.77 directing the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 35.00 p.m. with effect from 1.7.74 within one month of the order and also to continue to pay or deposit the future rent at the said rate month by month by the 15th of each succeeding English calendar month. The tenant was allo...
Tag this Judgment!Sonodyne Television Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2532Tri(Delhi)
1. The petitioner-company manufactures T. V. sets, which they sell to the wholesale dealers. At the time of sale to these dealers, they recover the invoice price, but after the delivery is effected, they raised bills for comprehensive maintenance charges from these buyers.Revenue considers that the comprehensive maintenance charges, which had been excluded from the assessable value formed a part thereof.2. Two show-cause notices were issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 31st August and 31st December 1984, alleging that the petitioner-company had wilfully mis-stated and suppressed facts for mis-declaring the price of T.V. sets manufactured by them and had thereby contravened the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act and also of the Rules made thereunder. The demand raised in the first show cause notice, which pertained to the period 1-12-1979 to 31-12-1979 was for Rs. 74,160/-, while the demand in the second show cause notice, which covered the period 1-1-198...
Tag this Judgment!