Delhi Court November 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 8 of about 90 results (0.022 seconds)Mangal SaIn Ram Niwas Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)20ITD23(Delhi)
1. The assessee by its present appeal challenges the first appellate order dated 11-4-1984 of the learned AAC, Rohtak, for the assessment year 1982-83, inter alia, on the following ground: That under the facts and circumstances of the case, lower authorities grossly erred in law and the facts in holding that payment of interest amounting to Rs. 8,916 and Rs. 5,125 paid by the firm to Shri Mangal Sain (individual) and Shri Mool Chand (individual) is hit by the provisions of Section 40(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Other grounds, i.e., ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 4 is consequential and requires no separate discussion.3. The assessee is a registered firm by status and accounting period was the year ending 31-3-1982. The assessee derives income from purchase and sale of metal. The learned ITO noticed that Shri Mangal Sain and Shri Mool Chand who are partners as kartas of their HUFs received interest from the firm on their deposits in their individual c...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Shakeel Vs. Smt. Shaeehna Parveen, and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1509; 1987(1)Crimes115; 31(1987)DLT171; 1987(12)DRJ127
ORDER1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the present writ petition of Mohd. Shakeel against his wife Smt. Shahina Parveen, who has been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensem by the Courts below. 2. Most of the facts are not in dispute. On 3-8-1981, the respondent-applicant filed a petition under S. 125 of the Criminal P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem from the petitioner alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner according to Mohammedan rites on 12-11-79; that after the marriage, the parties started living together as husband and wife at the house of the petitioner; that out of the said wedlock, one female child was born on 21-11-80 at the house of the respondent's parents; that the said child, however expired on 8-7-1981. 3. Narrating the circumstances under which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home, the respondent alleged that right from the date of marriage, the behavior of the petitioner and the members of...
Tag this Judgment!Renu Chawla Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ43; 1987RLR49
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This criminal revision filed by the revisionist Smt. Renu Chawla is directed against the order dated 30/1/1984 passed by Shri V.B. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, on the revision petition of Km. Manjul Kishore against the order dated 11/8/1983 of Shri Om Prakash, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The learned Magistrate had summoned Km. Manjul in the complaint under Section 494 Indian Penal Code feeling satisfied that Anil Chawla another accused person in the case had contracted marriage with Km. Manjul second time during the subsistence of his first marriage with Smt. Renu Chawla. That order so far it pertains to the summoning of Km. Manjul was concerned was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated 30/1/1984 palpably on the ground that there was no evidence regarding the actual marriage through marriage rituals having taken place between Anil Chawla and Km. Manjul and that admission on the part of the accused was no...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ136
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the convict Jagdish alias Jaggi against the judgment of conviction and sentence both dated 12/3/1986 and passed by Shri P.S. Shanna, Add). Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 Ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for that offence.(2) The prosecution case against the appellant is that he was married to the injured Smt. Rani about eight years ago and had two daughters and two sons begotten to them out of this wedlock and they were all living together at House No. 16/445, Padam Singh Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi About 1' years after her marriage the injured Smt. Rani learnt that her husband (appellant) was keeping another woman as his mistress and whenever she protested to him on that count, he would maltreat her and even give her beatings often and was also not providing food to her for months and would also go away from the house to live with tha...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC412Tri(Delhi)
1. We have heard Smt. J.K. Chander, JDR, for the appellant and Shri Lachman Dev, Consultant, for the respondent and have perused the papers.2 The issue for decision in this appeal is the value of the respondent's clearances for the purpose of Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 as amended by Notification. 141/79 and whether Ayurvedic Medicines said to be falling under Tariff Item 68 cleared by the respondents free of duty in terms of Notification No. 55/75 as amended during the period 1978-79 were to be taken into account for working out the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods during the preceding financial year for the purpose of the aforesaid exemptions.2. It may be stated that the issue relates to a period before amendment of Tariff Item 68 in 1980 whereby an explanation was added on 19-6-1980 to Tariff Item 68 in the following words :- "For the purposes of this item, goods which are referred to in any preceding item in this schedule for the purpose of excluding ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT207; 1987(12)DRJ49
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) By means of this petition brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) the petitioner Rajinder Kumar seeks the quashing of the complaint and the consequent prosecution pending against him in the court of Shri G. P. Mittal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. (2) The only contention raised at the bar by Mr. Sud learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint does not set out the facts constituting the criminal force whereby the Food Inspectors were prevented by the petitioner from taking the samples of Suji, Bura & Til Oil food articles from the premises of M/s.Singhal Kiryana Stores, 10875-76, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, wherein business was conducted by the petitioner and in support of his contention he has relied upon Section 190(l)(a) of the Code which reads as follows :- '190.Cognizance of offences by Magistrates-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Devi Vs. Priti Mandal @ Priti Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ222
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) A petition under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was presented by Smt. Kailash Devi (for short 'K') on 21/12/1973 for declaring the marriage of 224 Shri 0m Parkash Aggarwal (for short '0') and Smt. Priti Aggarwal (for short 'P') as null and void on the ground that 'K' was the legally wedded wife of '0' and that subsequent marriage of '0' with 'P' was in violation of Section 4(a) of the Act and could not take place. '0' admitted the allegation of 'K' but 'P' did not appear and was proceeded ex parte. An ex parte decree declaring the marriage of '0' with 'P' as null and void was passed on 26/8/1974. 'P' who was ex parte then brought an application under Order Ix Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree of nullity against her. That application was once dismissed in default but restored on payment of Rs. 10.00 as costs. It was against dismissed in default on 27/5/1...
Tag this Judgment!Devinder Kumar JaIn Vs. T.N. Idnani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ33
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This revision petition under Seiction. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of eviction dated 6th September 1985 passed by Mr. J.M. Malik, Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act against the petitioner. (2) On 14/3/1980 the respondents Shri T.N. Idnani and his wife Mr. Gangabai Idnani filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on ground of bona fide requirement under. Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The respondents were allowed to amend the eviction petition and the amended petition is dated 23rd September 1981. They alleged that the petitioner was their tenant in one and a half storey building with garden, terrace and out houses at B-19, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi shown in the plan attached on a monthly rent of Rs. 2500.00 besides electricity and water charges; the premises were let for residential purposes in the first week' of October, 1978 ; they were the owners ...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Idnani Vs. A.D. Khanna
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi66; 32(1987)DLT223; 1987(12)DRJ40; 1987RLR33
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 26/4/1986 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 15th April 1986 of the Rent Controller for eviction of the appellant under Section 14(i)(h) of the Act. (2) Briefly the facts are that A.D. Khanna, respondent sought eviction of T.N. ldnani, appellant from the ground floor of his house at D-403, defense Colony, New Delhi under Section 14(l)(h) of the Act on allegations that the premises were let to the appellant for residential purposes at Rs. 633.00 per month which included Rs. 3.00 on account of water charges and the appellant . had built residential house at B-19, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The defense of the appellant was that he became tenant in 1964-65 and constructed his house in 1972 while the present eviction petition was filed on 20/5/1984 that the respondent was aware of building the said...
Tag this Judgment!Kartar Singh Vs. P.C. Mukhrjee
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT160
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for Short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th November, 1977 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 3rd August, 1977 of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's application for eviction of the respondent on ground of nonpayment of rent under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act. (2) The appellant served a notice of demand dated 10th November, 1976 requiring the respondent to pay the arrears of rent at Rs. 240.00 per month from 1st March, 1976 onwards. This notice was duly served. No amount was either paid or tendered. The appellant filed the petition alleging that the respondent had already availed the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act in earlier proceedings : the respondent neither paid nor tendered any rent in spite of service of notice of demand dated 10th November, 1976 for second time and claimed eviction on ground of non-payment of rent. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!