Delhi Court August 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 75 results (0.021 seconds)Bhupinder Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT27
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) The appellant Bhupinder Singh was tried by Shri D.C. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, on the charge of murdering Manjit Kaur, alias Billo, resident of A-308, Pandav Nagar, Delhi. The Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced him to imprisonment for lile. Against his conviction and sentence the accused has filed this appeal.(2) The case for the prosecution is this. Gian Kaur (PW 1) with her family including the daughter Manjit Kaur resided at A-308, Pandav Nagar,Manjit Kaur was married to Amrik Singh of Bharatpur. She left Amrik Singh some years back and started living with the mother. Manjit Kaur married Tilak Raj of West Patel Nagar and lived with him for some years. Manjit Kaur also left Tilak Raj and again returned to the house of her mother. Accused Bhupinder Singh was a friend of Kuldip Singh (brother of Manjit Kaur Bhupinder Singh used to visit Kuldip Singh and during his visits he came to know Manjit Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Swarup Vs. Mahinder Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT205; 1985RLR536
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an application for restoration of the second appeal dismissed in default by Justice Avadh Behari, J. on 25th of January 1985. The appeal was listed a day earlier i.e. on 24th of January 1985 for admission. As the name of Shri M.L. Lonial, advocates was not shown in the cause list the learned Judge directed that his name be shown in the list and that the matter be listed for 25th January, 1985. The present application is moved by Shri R.K. Anand, advocate on 1st February 1985. It is stated in the application that he was engaged by the appellant on 14-1-1985. After studying the appeal paper-book he found that it would not be possible to argue the matter on 15th January 1985. He, thereforee, filed an application before the Joint Registrar for adjourning to 15th February 1985. The appellant, after learning that the matter was dismissed in default on 25th January 1985 engaged advocate R.K. Anand who took the inspection of the file on 29th January 1985 to discover as t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Tulsi Devi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD283(Delhi)
1. The applicant revenue by the present reference application, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), presented on 23-7-1984, require the Tribunal to refer a question, for the esteemed opinion of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, said to be a referable question of law and further stated to be arising out of the order dated 2-5-1984 of Bench 'T' of the Tribunal, Delhi in WT Appeal No. 338 (Delhi) of 1983 for the assessment year 1971-72. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in vacating the order of the WTO who imposed penalty of Rs. 9,039 under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 especially in view of the provision of Section 42C of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 3. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, no referable question of law, as suggested by the revenue, emanates from our said order, we, therefore, decline to make a reference. However, for doing so, we state our reasons in the succeeding paragraphs.4. Return of net wea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Renu Khanna
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]160ITR855(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. This is a petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1976-77, which prays for a reference regarding the following three questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the entire capital gain is not taxable in the assessment year 1976-77 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, option under section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was available to the assessed 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was 'making up of accounts' in the present case within the meaning of section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessed sold gold ornaments in a short period from December 22, 1975, to December 29, 1975, on various dates. This sale was disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975, which was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The sales we...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]165ITR599(Delhi)
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioners, M/s. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., have challenged the legality of the order dated January 30, 1973, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, whereby the revision petitions filed by the petitioners were held to be barred by time and the application seeking condensation of delay in filing the revision petitions was dismissed.2. To appreciate the contention raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to notice a few facts.3. For the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48, the income from property let out to the employees of the petitioners had been assessed under section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), under the head 'Income from property'. For the assessment year 1948-49, the petitioners claimed for the first time that the income from those properties let out to its employees should be assessed as business income of the petitioners under section 10 of the Act and not under section 9 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Associates Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]63STC368(Delhi)
ORDERD.K. Kapur, J.1. This writ petition was heard after a show cause notice was issued. We issued rule D.B., and proceeded to hear the matter as it was a short one. 2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern dealing in the resale of motor parts and accessories. The business was carried on at the residential address of the petitioner at B-3/13, Model Town, Delhi, from 1976. 3. According to the petition, from 27th May, 1982, an additional place of business was opened by the petitioner at 2820/17, Gurunanak Auto Market, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, where another dealer, M/s. Mehta Auto Agencies, was also carrying on similar business. 4. On opening the additional place of business, the petitioner was required by section 40 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, to send information within the prescribed time to the prescribed authority. The relevant rule dealing with this is rule 34 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975. The relevant portions of this rule are : '34. Information to be furnished regarding ...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Joshi, Ut. Director (Pfa), Delhi Admn. Vs. Dayala Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1828
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.1. This is an acquittal appeal directed against the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 7-4-79 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. Earlier, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to the payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Metropolitan Magistrate.2. This case pertains to the sample of mustard oil which Sumiti Kumar Gupta, Food Inspector (PW 2) purchased from the respondent on 12-7-78 from his premises No. A-4/4, Krishan Nagar, Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. On analysis .by the Public Analyst it was found to be adulterated due to excess of 7.4 in saponification value and also on account of poly bromide test being positive. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on facts has recorded no finding. We would thereforee assume that on facts he has expressed his agreement with the conclusion of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. ...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2158Tri(Delhi)
1. Originally preferred as a revision application before the Central Government, on transfer to the Tribunal, we are treating it as an appeal. In this appeal, Order No. 494-A to 495, dated 29-2-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Board) has been challenged.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the importers presented three Bills of Entry at Cochin Port for the clearance of three consignments of skimmed milk powder imported from Canada. The price for the goods shown in the relevant invoices was US $ 356.00 per MT C.I.F. Bombay. Copy of the letter of credit No. CPLC/21/78 issued by M/s Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., New Delhi also showed the same rate.Records show that the LC was originally opened for a total figure of US $ 35437.00 for the shipment of about 100 MT of skimmed milk powder in 25 Kgs. packing, the terms being C.I.F. Calcutta. This was later amended by increasing the quantity and value of the goods to 130} MT ...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderabad Race Club Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2462Tri(Delhi)
1. The questions arising for decision in this Appeal by M/s. Hyderabad Race Club, Hyderabad, against order dated 31-12-81 passed by Central Board of Excise and Customs are whether the Totaliser system installed by the appellants in their premises at Hyderabad is liable to central excise duty, if so, its quantum and the period for which it should be made and the legality of show cause notice dated 3-1-1978 which has led to the present demand.It might be stated that Item No. 9 of Notification No. 51/70-C.E. dated 1-3-1970, as amended by subsequent notifications, specifies Totalisers as one of the office machines and apparatus liable to duty under Tariff Item 33-D of Central Excise Tariff. During arguments it was felt that the Item specifies Totalisers and not Totalizators or Totalizator system and that three might be different. On this doubt being expressed by the Bench, Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Counsel for the appellants, stated that this was not one of the grounds he urged aga...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Smt. V.T. Naresh and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ173; (1986)ILLJ323Del
1. By this petition under Act. 226 of the Constitution of India, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has impugned the order of the Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which transpires in to be an order dated 22nd December, 1980 as stated in the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority appointed under the aforesaid Act the order dates 26th July, 1982 passed by the Appellate Authority appointed under the aforesaid Act.2. Smt. V. T. Naresh, respondent No. 1 had filed an application under S. 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act') for payment of gratuity on her retirement from service on 6th February, 1976. Her case was that she had been employed on 1st August, 1953 and she is entitled to gratuity as she has served the Corporation for 22 years 6 months and 6 days. The petitioner - Corporation pleased that the Act is not applicable to the employees of the Petitioner - Corporation and that the Corporation has its own gratui...
Tag this Judgment!