Delhi Court March 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ashok Kumar Vs. Santosh Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi63; 1986(11)DRJ135; 1986RLR408
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This is a husband's appeal against the order of Shri G.S. Dhaka, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 23/1/1982 in H. M. A Case No. 470 of 1979.(2) By the said order the Additional District Judge has dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage, filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred -to as 'the Act')(3) The facts giving rise to the petition are that the marriage was solemnised between the parties on 26/6/1977 at village Prablad Pur, Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites The parties lived together for a short while as a husband and wife, at 117, Main Bazar, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi, in the house where the husband used to reside with .his mother and father.(4) No child was born to the parties.(5) The husband in his petition averred a large number of acts which according to the husband was cruelty to him. The husband averted inter alias that the wife had failed to discharge matrimonial obligations and t...
Sushil Ansal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)58CTR(Del)27; [1986]160ITR308(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) INCOME-TAX is only one tax though it is levied on the sum total of one's income classified as chargeable under various heads which are set out in Section 14 of the Act. The computation of the income under each of these heads carries its own difficulties but, of all the heads of income referred to in Section 14, the computation of the in- come under the head 'income from house property' is perhaps the simplest. There are two important features of the assessment of this kind of income. The first is that, under this head, the annual value of property consisting of any buildings or land appurtenant thereto, of which the assessed is the owner, is chargeable to income tax. Thus, the tax under this section is in respect of the ownership of property and not the occupation, possession or other kind of rights over house property. The second point is that the annual value of any property for the purpose of this computation was prescribed under Section 23 (at the point of ti...
Yog Raj Srivastava Vs. Naresh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT492; 1986(11)DRJ201
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated January 3. 1977.(2) The dispute is in respect of first and second floors of house No. 1270. Pahari Imli. Delhi. The appellant Yog Raj Srivastava (since deceased) was in possession of the said premises as a tenant under Smt. Pushpa Srivastava and others, predecessors-in-interest of the present respondent Naresh Kumar, as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40.00 On February 19, 1970 the landlords brought a petition for his eviction under clauses (a), (b) and (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of 'the Act'. The grounds under clauses (b) and (e) were neither pressed before the Tribunal nor before me and thereforee do not survive. So far as clause (a) is concerned the averment made was that the tenant had failed to pay the arrears of rent in spite of service of notice of demand. A suit for the recover...
Hind Electricians and anr. Vs. D. V. Srivastava and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)58CTR(Del)8
B. N. Kirpal, J. - The challenge in the present writ petition was to an order dated 9th May, 1984 passed by Respondent No. 1 under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By the said order the petitioner-herein has been directed to get his accounts audited by firm of Chartered Accountants.2. In the Writ Petition serious allegations of malafides had been alleged against the respondents. It is not necessary to spell out what the allegations were. Respondent No. 1 has filed his affidavit denying the allegations but no affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. Counsel for the respondent of course, says that it is an inadvertent omission.3. The arguments in the case commenced on 19th March, 1986 and continued on 20th March, 1986. In the late afternoon when the counsel for the petitioner had completed his submissions the learned counsel for the respondents stated that he had instructions to inform the court that the impugned order was being withdrawn. It was under these circums...
Sankey Wheels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC231
1. A common issue is involved in these three appeals, they relate to the same appellants and were argued before us together. This combined order is passed to dispose of all of them.2. The point of dispute is whether, during the period from 1-3-1979 to 1-6-1979, the appellants were entitled to supply the wheels manufactured by them to manufacturers of motor vehicles free of duty for fitment as original equipment of those vehicles. A chronological listing of the statutory changes during the relevant period will facilitate understanding of the issues involved.Pre-1-3-1979 : Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff covered "Parts and accessories, not elsewhere specified, of motor vehicles and tractors including trailers" and carried the tariff rate of 20% ad valorem.However, by exemption notification No. 99/71-CE, dated 29-5-1971, all parts and accessories of motor vehicles and tractors were made free of duty barring 12 items listed in the notification. Wheels, the subject goods, not being s...
Hukam Singh Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD1a(Delhi)
The first ground of appeal in the assessee's appeal in respect of this year is regarding its status. According to the assessee, it is non-resident in India, whereas, according to the revenue, the assessee is a resident.2. The assessee's case for this year is the same as canvassed by him for the assessment year 1977-78. In its letter dated 2-3-1981, the assessee submitted, inter alia, as follows : The assessee-firm submits once again that on the facts and for the reasons given in assessment year 1977-78 and for which the appeal has already been heard by the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee-firm is a non-resident firm not liable to assessment in India. Assessee-firm's case is that the control and management of the affairs of the firm are being exercised from Kabul, books of account are being maintained in Kabul. No business is being transacted from any place in India. There is not even any office in India from which it could have transacted any business. There is no income earned in...
M/S Indo-keniyan Industrial Enterprises Vs. M/S Metal Forgings (P) Lim ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi592
ORDER1. This is an application under Ss. 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (in short the 'Act') for committal proceedings against the respondents. The facts germane to the decision of this petition succinctly are that at the relevant time Shri G. L. Seenik was the sole proprietor of M/s. Indo Kenyan Industrial Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'). The said proprietary concern of Shri G. L. Seenik is a perpetual lessee of a plot No. B-18, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Maya Puri, New Delhi. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') is a private limited company and is carrying on Metal Forgings Industry. Its plants are situated on Plots No. B-1 and B-17, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi which are adjacent to each other. The aforesaid plot No. B-18 of the petitioner firm is also contiguous to the said plots. In November, 1981 the Company instituted a suit against the petitioner, described as the sole proprietary concern of Shri G. L. Seenik, for ...
Bharat Wood Products Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: [1987]64STC107(Delhi)
T.P.S. Chawla, J.1. Bharat Wood Products Co. was registered as a 'dealer' under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (the 'Act'). It was required to file quarterly returns. As enjoined by section 10(3) of the Act, the tax due according to the returns had to be paid before the returns were filed. For the year 1971-72, all its quarterly returns were filed beyond the prescribed time. The tax due, according to the returns, was also paid late. The amounts of tax payable for the first, second, third and fourth quarters were Rs. 8,782.75, Rs. 8,063.20, Rs. 14,469.15 and Rs. 21,043.10 respectively. These amounts were paid late respectively by 26 days, 12 days, 2 days and 38 days. 2. The Sales Tax Officer was satisfied that the returns were correct and made an assessment on that basis. However, he imposed a consolidated penalty of Rs. 15,000 for the late filing of all the four quarterly returns and the delayed payments of the tax. A heavy penalty...
industrial Enterprises Vs. Metal Forgings (P) Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1592
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This is an application under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (in short the 'Act') for committal proceedings against the respondents.The facts germane to the decision of his petition succinctly are that at the relevant time Shri G. L. Seenik was the sole proprietor of Mjs. Indo Kenyan Industrial Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'). The said proprietary concern of Shri G. L. Seenik is a perpetual lessee of a plot No.B-18, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Mayapuri, New Delhi; .Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') is a private limited company and is carrying on Metal Forgings Industry. Its plants are situated on Plots No. B-1 and B-17, Mayapuri, Industrial Area, New Delhi which are adjacent' to eachother. The aforesaid plot No. B-18 of the petitioner firm is also contiguous to the said plots. In November, 1981 the Company instituted a suit against the petitioner, described as the sole proprietary concern of Shri G. L....
Sada Nand and ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes474; ILR1986Delhi81; 1986RLR394
J.D. Jain, J. (1) All the petitioners, namely, Sada Nand, Vinod Mehta, Mahinder Pal and Jasbir Singh, are common to all the above mentioned petitions under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). Since common questions of law and fact arc involved in all these petitions, I dispose of the same by this consolidated order. (2) The facts giving rise to these petitions succinctly are that M/s. Debonair Publications Private Limited, Bombay (for short 'the Company'), publishes a monthly magazine entitled 'Debonair' in English from Bombay. At the relevant time, namely. June and July 1977, Sada Nand, petitioner No. I, was employed with the Company and was working as printer and publisher of the magazine 'Debonair'. The second petitioner Vinod Mehta was editor of the said magazine while Mahinder Pal and Jasbir Singh, petitioners 3 & 4, were partners of a firm called Mis. News Centre situated at Delhi which was doing the business of selling the newspapers ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »