Delhi Court March 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 6 of about 77 results (0.021 seconds)Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Pushpinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]165ITR744(Delhi)
1. This order will dispose of Wealth-tax References Nos. 42 to 45 of 1976, relating to the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1963-64. The question referred by the Tribunal for opinion of this court is mentioned in para. 6 of the statement of case, which reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income-tax liability relating to the secreted income of the assessed disclosed under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, after the relevant valuation dates, were deductible under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in determining the assessed's net wealth as on the relevant valuation dates.' 2. This question has already been answered by this court in the case of CWT v. Girdhari Lal : [1975]99ITR79(Delhi) , and by the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji v. CWT : [1981]129ITR314(SC) , against the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and the view of the Tribunal has been upheld. therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Jugal Kishore Mittal Vs. the Management of Sasta Sahitya Mandal a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR564]; (1987)ILLJ231Del
1. The validity of the award of the Labour Court, who had held that the petitioner was not a workman, is sought to be challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is stated to have been employed on 1st January, 1964. According to the petitioner the nature of his duties were clerical and manual and he was getting a fixed salary of Rs. 185/- per month together with commission which accrued to him at an average of Rs. 100/- per month. 3. It is also alleged that the management got annoyed with the petitioner because he had made a claim for salary in lieu of leave which had been unavailed. The petitioner is stated to have been dismissed from service vide the letter dated 31st March, 1970. The services were terminated without assigning any reason and without holding any departmental enquiry. 4. Thereafter a dispute was raised between the parties and vide notification dated 22nd February, 1971 the Lt. Governor, Delhi referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The term o...
Tag this Judgment!Em and Em Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR142(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT139
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) -AWARD was filed in this case and notice was given to both the parties regarding the Award having been filed in Court and they were called upon to file objections, if any, against the same. respondent Delhi Development Authority (in short the DDA) filed objections against the Award which were resisted by the claimant M[s. Em & Em Associates. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the Award is liable to be set aside on the objections filed by respondent-DDA 2. Relief.(2) The controversy under this issue was ordered to be revolved upon affidavits. One affidavit each was filed by way of evidence by both the parties.(3) Clause (25) is the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties and this clause provides that in all cases where the amount of the claim in dispute is Rs. 50,0001- and above, the Arbitrator will give reasons for the Award.(4) The basic and the fundamental contention raised by Dr. L. M. Singhvi couns...
Tag this Judgment!imtiaz Ahmed Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes23; ILR1986Delhi1b
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The appellant was charged under section 302 Indian Penal Code by the Addl. Sessions Judge Delhi and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by orders dated 2-3-82 and 4-3-82 respectively. He was found guilty of committing the murder of one Chottey Lal. (2) Date of incident is 9th July, 1980 at about 9 P.M. The place of incident is not known. The deceased, however, was found to have sustained stab injuries by Public Witness s 1, 2 and 3 and was picked up from near the house of one Bishen Verma R/o East Azad Nagar. The same set of Public Witness s removed him to J.P.N. Hospital in the van of P.V. I Shri Ashok Kumar, Public Witness 2 is Savitri wife of the deceased. (3) At 12.10 A.M. one Dev Raj constable on duty in J.P.N. Hospital informed police station Krishan Nagar that the wife of the deceased Chotey Lal admitted him to hospital with stab injuries allegedly sustained in a quarrel. This information was recorded and a copy thereof was sent to A....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Centrals Excise Vs. Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC179
1. These two appeals were heard together by consent of parties as they relate to the same issue. The question that falls for consideration in these two appeals is whether the disinfectant fluids manufactured by the appellants are entitled to exemption in terms of notification No.55/75-CE, dated 1-3-1975 as amended by notification No. 62/78, dated 1-3-1978. Under the notification as it was issued on 1st March, 1975, several items were wholly exempted from excise duty. Some more items were subsequently added under further notifications. Under notification No. 62 of 1978 item 18 was introduced which read : "Insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides. The appellants claim that the disinfectant fluids manufactured by them would be entitled to exemption in terms of the said notification as they would be either pesticides or fungicides." 2. Their claim had been rejected by the Assistant Collector concerned, but, on appeal, they had succeeded before the Collector (Appeals).These appe...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Farooq Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes571; 29(1986)DLT468; 1986(11)DRJ44; 1989(39)ELT192(Del)
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one Shri Mohd. Farooq, son of the detenu - Smt. Jaithoon Beevi, challenging the validity of the detention order made by Shri K. K. Dwivedi, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, (for short known as the Act) with a view to preventing her from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The detention order is challenged on a variety of grounds. However, before we notice the facts and the sequence of events on which the detaining authority has formed the subjective satisfaction, it is necessary to bear in mind some essential and relevant facts and dates. 2. The detenu is admittedly a sixty-eight years old lady. She is ailing and is illiterate. She has three sons, Abdul Ghafoor, Kamal Bachta and Farooq, the petitioner. Kamal Bachta and Abdul Ghafoor liv...
Tag this Judgment!Food and Drinks Industries Workers' Union Vs. Punjab Flour Mills and A ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR559]; (1994)IIILLJ834Del
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the non-grant of the relief of reinstatement to Munna Lal after the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the termination of his services was bad. 2. Munna Lal was employed as a helper for about li years by Respondent No. 1. On 9th Jan., 1971 his services were terminated because he refused to perform the domestic household work of the Factory Miller. 3. Munna Lal then raised an industrial dispute relating to his termination. Conciliation proceedings took place but no settlement could be arrived at. The Lt. Governor then by notification dated 8th October, 1971 referred the following dispute to the Additional Labour Court, Delhi:- 'Whether the termination of services of Shri Munna Lal is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?'. 4. The case of Munna Lal, in the statement he had filed, was that he was in continuous service for the last 11/2 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC137Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two matters in which the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue have issued show cause notices under Section 36 (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for review of the Orders-in-Appeal No. 10/82 (C), dated 18-1-1982 and No. 73/82 (C), dated 11-5-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras in Appeals filed by M/s. Fertilizer and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Udyogmandal. On the setting up of this Tribunal, these matters have been transferred here and are now being treated as appeals before us. Since both matters relate to the same issue, these are being disposed of by this common Order.2. As per the show cause notices issued by the Central Government, the facts are that the respondents are manufacturing ammonium chloride of 99.8% purity. It is stated that this is intended for use as a chemical.However, from 5th July, 1974, this ammonium chloride had been cleared by the respondents under Item 14HH of the Central Excise Tari...
Tag this Judgment!J.B.A. Printing Inks Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(24)ELT411TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed before this Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against Order No. 321/Cal./82 dated 23rd April 1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. Appellants have stated that they are unable to attend the hearing and that the case may be decided in absentia on the basis of written submissions. We are proceeding to do so accordingly.3. On behalf of the appellants, it is stated that they had purchased from their factory at Bombay 3600 litres of Varnish under 4 different invoices on different dates. It is stated that these goods were under a particular brand name of the manufacturers and cleared on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. The appellants subsequently sold the same product under a different brand name and code number, although the containers and price were not altered. It is claimed that in this transaction, the appellants acted merely as traders and they were not manufacturers of the goods in...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC366Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. M/s. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd., Manali, Madras, (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants), are manufacturers of Polyester Fibre and Tops falling under item No. 18 I of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET for short). Apart from the normal course of manufacture of polyester fibre, they also manufacture polyester fibre and tops out of duty paid waste ("non-cellulosic wastes, all sorts" fall under item No. 18IV of the CET), by recycling the waste. The dispute in the present case is as to whether the wastes generated in the course of manufacture of polyester fibre/tops from duty paid wastes have to suffer duty again at the time of clerance. The appellant's contention was that since...
Tag this Judgment!