Delhi Court November 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 3 of about 90 results (0.026 seconds)M.L. Khera Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1658
ORDERM.K. Chawla, J.1. In this revision petition M.L. Khera has challenged his conviction under Section 29(2), Delhi Development Act (herein after referred to as the Act) and sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- only or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months by the Courts below.2. In order to appreciate the scope of this revision petition, it is relevant to keep in mind the admitted facts. On 18th Jan. 1980, Shri B.M. Aggarwal, P.W. 2, Junior Engineer of D.D.A. inspected building No. 21-A, North Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, and found that in one of the rooms on the ground floor an office of a property dealer under the name and style of 'Khera Property Dealer' was functioning. This was a prohibited user of the building as per the Master Plan of Delhi. After obtaining necessary sanction from the Competent Authority, D.D.A. filed a complaint under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Act in the Court of the concerned Magistrate on 16th April, 1980.3. In support ...
Tag this Judgment!National Small Industries Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)20ITD552(Delhi)
1. The assessee in this appeal is a corporation incorporated in 1955 pursuant to a resolution of the Government of India dated 7-6-1954 with the main object of assisting and nurturing the small scale sector industries in the country. The main function of this corporation is to provide finance to the small scale industrial units. The assessee-corporation is to import machinery from abroad on credit and sell such machinery on hire-purchase basis to small scale entrepreneurs.2. In aid of this project the Government of India concluded an agreement with the Government of Federal Republic of Germany on 25-7-1969 whereunder the Government of Federal Republic of Germany agreed to assist by providing economic aid. Guided by this desire and on the proposal of the Government of India the assessee-corporation is to obtain a loan of 5 lakh Dm. from the Government of Federal Republic of Germany. An agreement dated 21-4-1970 was entered into, under which a company called KFW of West Germany was to a...
Tag this Judgment!Pudukkudl Abdu Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT44
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) This is a petition praying for the issue of a writ Habeas Corpus for release of the petitioner who has been detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 ('COFEPOSA') under a detention order dated 4.1 1.1985. (2) It is not necessary to set out in detail the grounds of detention communicated to the petitioner because we find that the writ petition has to be allowed on a very snort point which we shall refer to a little later. We may just set out a few relevant dates and events. Ihe petitioner arrived at Trivandrum airport from Kuwait on 9.6 1985. He thereafter proceeded to a place called Thikodi in taxi along with two other persons. The taxi was intercepted on the way by the officers of the customs and the petitioner was interrogated by the authorities on certain allegations of smuggling gold between the 10th June, 1985 and 12th June, 19S5 when be was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Calicu,. Su...
Tag this Judgment!Meteor Satellite Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC27
1. These three appeals turn on the same facts. Appeal No. 1250/82-B1 deals with the basic question whether the appellants were entitled to the exemption in terms of Notification No. 71/78 dated 1.3.78. The other two appeals deal with the consequential claims for refund. Both sides are agreed that these appeals will succeed or fail according as the main appeal succeeds or fails.2. The appellants are manufacturers of motor vehicle parts, namely pistons, falling under Item 34A of the Excise Tariff as in force at the relevant time. They supplied these parts to manufacturers of motor vehicles in terms of exemption Notification No. 101/71 dated 29.5.71 as amended by Notification No. 96/72 dated 17.3.72. Under the amended notification, motor vehicle parts including pistons were exempt from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon, provided it was proved that they were to be used as original equipment (O.E.) parts by manufacturers of motor vehicles, and the procedure set out in Chapter X...
Tag this Judgment!Pritam Singh Vs. Delhi Admn. and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987CriLJ872; 1987(12)DRJ142
ORDER1. A complaint was filed by one Shri M. Saleem Siddiqui, Advocate, against the petitioner in the Court of Shri G. P. Thareja, Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, under Ss. 161/323/504/341/34, I.P.C. On 18-7-85, the learned Magistrate recorded an order summoning the petitioner. On 7-8-85 after the petitioner and the other accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, an application was submitted to the learned Magistrate to the effect that the offence had been committed by them in the discharge of their official duties during the course of their employment in Delhi Traffic Police and that in view of the provision of S. 197, Cr.P.C. no cognizance of the offence could have been taken against them. The learned Magistrate has declined to accept the plea. These two orders are as under :- '18-7-85 : Present complainant. Heard the complainant. I have gone through the complaint and the testimony of two witnesses that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- as a compounding fee a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mrs. Geeta Gupta Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Del)127; [1987]168ITR222(Delhi)
Jagdish Chandra, J.1. A complaint was filed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range XIV, New Delhi, against the present petitioner, Dr. (Mrs.) Geeta Gupta, and her accountant, Atma Singh under sections 276-C 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), read with sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 on the allegations that Dr. Geeta Gupta was guilty of making a willful attempt to evade tax, and also of making a statement in the verification under the Act and of delivering an account and statement which were false and which she knew or believed to be false and did not believe to be true. The complaint further proceeded on the allegations that she had also fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in the course of income tax proceedings and she dishonestly and fraudulently used that evidence in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1980-81...
Tag this Judgment!Tobu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC228; 1988LC488(Delhi); 1987(29)ELT16(Del)
1. The petitioner is a private limited company, and is engaged in the manufacture of 'bicycles and tricycles for children' since 1975, at its factory located at 71/5, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. The circumstance which led to the filing of this writ petition was seizure of bicycle/tricycle which were made by the respondents vide seizure memo which is annexed to the writ petition as annexure 1. According to the seizure memo, excisable goods that were seized, were 'all other goods N.E.S. (Wheeled Toys) Tariff Item No. 68 of C. E. Tariff.', 'Quantity; 1300 Nos. (details as per list enclosed)', 'Value : Rs. 1,83,073.00'. 2. Tariff Item No. 68 reads as under :- '68. All other goods, not elsewhere specified, but excluding; (a) alcohol, all sorts, including alcoholic liquors for human consumption; (b) opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics; and (c) dutiable goods as defined in section 2(c) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (16 of 1955). Explana...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Bikram Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT104
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The respondent was charged by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi under section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravening the provisions of Delhi Specified Articles (Regulations and Distribution) Order, 1981. On a plea of guilty he was convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to the payment of tine of Rs 800.00 in default of payment of which he was required to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. (2) The state felt aggrieved of the order in as much as according to the appellant the sentence awarded was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence involved. (3) I have heard Mr. R.P. Lao, counsel for the State, and have gone through the record. For a proper assessment of the issue involved I may notice the facts that gave rise to the prosecution of the respondent. The charge against the accused-respondent is that he did not maintain the proper and regular account in respect of the receipt of Palm Seed and Rape Seed Oil re...
Tag this Judgment!Geeta Gupta Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ92; 1987RLR36
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) A complaint was filed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) Range Xiv, New Delhi against the present petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Geeta Gupta and her accountant Atma Singh under Sections 276-C/277/278 of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) read with Sections 193/196 Indian Penal Code in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 on the allegations that Dr. Geeta Gupta was guilty of making willful attempt to evade tax, and also of making a statement in verification under the Act and of delivering an account and statement which were false and which she knew or believed to be false and did not believe to be true. The complaint further proceeded on the allegations that she had also fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in the course of income tax proceedings and she dishonestly and fraudulently used that evidence in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1980-81 which are judicial proceedings. As aga...
Tag this Judgment!Eicher Goodearth Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT112TriDel
1. This application has been filed under Section 35 G(I) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for raising certain questions of law as arising out of the order of this Tribunal dated 7-8-1985.3. On 17-2-1982 the Central Excise staff visited the factory premises of one M/s Unique Autogears, Jhotwara. It was observed that the unit was engaged in the manufacture of pump driving gears, falling under T.I.68 with the aid of power on its own account and also on job basis for M/s. Eicher Good Earth Ltd., Alwar (Applicants). 149 pieces of pump driving gears, fully manufactured, were lying in the factory and were seized under a reasonable belief the the same were liable to confiscation under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and for contravention of the provisions of Rules 53, 56-C and 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri Govardhan Lal Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Unique Auto Gears admitted their manufacture on job charges and the removal of 8165 pieces of pump driving gears ...
Tag this Judgment!