Delhi Court May 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 3 of about 68 results (0.022 seconds)NaraIn Kumar and Suri Wazir Singh Vs. H.C. Mehta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi275; ILR1986Delhi545b; 1986RLR507
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) These two revision petitions arise in similar circumstances and can be disposed of by a common order, though C.R. 902180 involves an additional issue that does not arise.in C.R. 903/80. (2) H. C. Mehta (the respondent in these two petitions) was the perpetual lessee from the Government of India of a plot of land measuring 200 sq. yds. and bearing No 218, Vinoba Puri, New Delhi. By two agreements dated 24-1-1972, he agreed to sell one half of the plot each to Narinder Kumar (petition in C.R. 902/ 80) and Wazir Singh (petitioner in C.R. 903/80) for Rs. 13,000.00 . He received the full consideration for the plots agreed to be sold and also delivered possession of a half-portion of the plot on the western side to Narinder Kumar and of the eastern half portion to Wazir Singh. However, before sale deeds could be executed in favor of each vendee in respect of the 100 sq. yds. of the plot agreed to be sold to him, two conditions had to be fulfillled and under the agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Bata India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC198
1. These are revision petitions filed before the Central Government and which stand transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if these were presented before the Tribunal.2. The appellants have filed revision application before the Government of India in one case against the order of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi and in the other case against the order of the Board in revision under Section 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act as applicable at the relevant time. The issue involved in both the cases relates to the valuation of the goods manufactured by the appellants namely, shoes, under the brand names, BSC and Bata. The appellants are marketing the BSC brand shoes through their authorised wholesale dealers from their depots and the Bata shoes are marketed by them through their own retail outlets. It has been held by the Board and the Appellate Collector that so far as the BSC brand shoes are concerned, the price list of the same will be fixed under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Central Distillery Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ27
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The question in this writ petition is whether the guarantee commission which has been paid to the Directors is remuneration within the meaning of Companies Act, requiring prior permission of the 'Central Government. (2) It has already been held by Justice G.C. Jain in C.W.P. No. 77 of 1972 that the guarantee commission paid to the Directors is not remuneration. (3) The question raised in the instant writ petition having already been decided by this court, the said question is no more rest integra, this writ petition has thereforee to be allowed. (4) This petition (C.W. No. 1412/82) is accordingly allowed.(5) No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Jaspal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes29; 1986(11)DRJ219; 1986RLR420
G.C. Jain, J. (1) The appellant, Jaipal Singh, was charged for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of Ishwar Singh on June 25, 1983 at about 10.45 A. M. at or around Hotel of Jagdish Parshad at Kapashera Border within the jurisdiction of Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi. He was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 30.000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo Ri for four years. It was directed that out of the amount of fine, if realised a sum of Rs. 25.000.00 shall be paid to the heirs of the deceaged. Feeling aggrieved Jaipal Singh has filed this appeal.(2) Jaipal Singh (appellant), Ishwar Singh (deceased) & Raj Pal (PW-1) were employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Appellant was posted as L.D.C. in the office of the Delhi Terminal Tax Agency, Ishwar Singh and Raj Pal were posted at Terminal Tax Agency at Kapashera Border a(r) pe...
Tag this Judgment!Victory Export and Import Syndicate Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi409; ILR1986Delhi320; 1986RLR472
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The petitioner No. 2, a partner of petitioner No. I, who is carrying on business in export of Walnut Stumps from India. It is stated in the petition that the Walnut Stumps which are exported by them are used for manufacturing various articles, as a result of which they have been earning foreign exchange running into crores of rupees for the country. (2) Walnut trees grow in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. They yield fruit-Walnut kernels; and, even when they stop yielding fruit, even after they are dried up, their timber is used in various ways. When the walnut trees are dried, part of their timber is used to feed the wood-carving industry of the State, part is used for the purposes of fuel. and the stumps are used for exports. (3) It is stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that according to the census of 1976 there are approximately 9,02,728 walnut trees in the State of Jammu & Kashmir our of which only about 1,04.476 are non-fruit bearing and capable of ...
Tag this Judgment!Paramjit Kaur Vs. S. Rajinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ149
Leila Seth, J.(1) This appeal has been filed by Ms. Paramjit Kaur against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 22nd April, 1985 by which he has not granted her divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but has granted her a decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion.(2) Ms. Paiamjit Kaur was married to Sardar Rajinder Singh on 22nd May, 1977 at Delhi. The marriage was solemnized in accordance with Sikh rites. Thereafter, they lived together and had three children, Khyati, Rohit Pal and Harmit Pal.(3) But it appears, that the relationship between Paramjit Kaur and Rajinder Singh was under strain from the start. Rajinder Singh used to com(r) home late at night, drunk. When Paramjit Kaur objected, be abide and beat her. Because of the ill treatment, she left the matrimonial home on three occasions, i.e. in 1977, 1980 and 1981 and went to her parents' home and complained to them. Her parents, however, persuaded her to re...
Tag this Judgment!Pal Singh Vs. H.D. Birdhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT199; 1986(11)DRJ131
S S. Chadha, J. (1) This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ii directed against the order dated March 31, 1975 passed by Shri H D. Birdi, Competent Authority (Slum) allowing an application under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act filed by Shri Sunder Singh for seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner.(2) The fact* lie in a narrow compass. Sh. Sunder Singh moved an application under Section 19 of the said Act for permission to institute proceeding for obtaining an order for eviction of the petitioner herein from tcourt-yeards consisting of three rooms with a court-yeard in house No. 2216 to 2222, Gali Inder Chamar, Teliwara, Delhi. The tenant filed a written statement railing several objections to the maintainability of the petition. The landlord then filed application. The parties were called upon to file their affidavits and counter affidavits. The Competent Authority appraised the evidence produced ...
Tag this Judgment!Trade Fair Authority of India and ors. Vs. Amarnath Bhatia and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT225
D.K. Kapur, C.J. (1) This Lpa raises the same points that were raised in some other writ petitions decided by the Division Bench in SD. Sharma v. Trade Fair Authority 1985 Slr 670. The employees of the Trade Fair Authority bad filed writ petitions to challenge their removal from service in almost exactly the same circumstances as in the case of Amar Nath Bhatia the respondent in this case. There was a meeting or demonstration held on 3.2.81 by the employees of the Trade Fair Authority in which certain speeches were made. Shri S.D. Sharma was one of the speakers. (2) There was a news item on 4.2.81 in the Patriot. There was an enquiry which led to the removal from service of Shri S.D. Sharma. An appeal to the Managing Director failed. Then a writ petition was filed. There were some other employees who similarly filed petitions. In the Division Bench judgment the conclusions were as follows : (I)the charges had been proved against the petitioner ; (II)the Trade Fair Authority was 'State...
Tag this Judgment!Aruna Industries Vishakhapatnam Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC35
1. As common question of facts (and) of law are involved in all these appeals, they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants in Appeal No. 322/85 and the respondents in the other appeals fabricate steel structures out of duty-paid materials supplied to them by Visakhapatnam Steel Project (hereinafter called as VSP).They have entered into contracts for the supply, fabrication and erection of structural steel and cladding works of Rolling Mills and Steel Melting Shop ( a shed ) in the project area. The above firms are contractors doing the fabrication work at the site allotted to them in the project area of VSP with their own machinery and workers. Show cause notices were issued to them on the basis that these contractors fabricate steel struct-urals from out of iron and steel products like plates, angles, joists, channels, rods and strips as per the specification of VSP. The steel structural so fabricated are shifted to the project site fo...
Tag this Judgment!Gem India Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)19ITD540(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a resident limited company, is in appeal. The assessment year involved being 1982-83, the relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1981. 1.1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 19,84,665 to the closing stock of refrigerators. 1.2 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in stating that the appellant had not filed copies of the relevant sale bills after 11-4-1981. 1.3 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding/price of warranty is part and parcel of the cost of refrigerators ignoring the principles of accountancy and the detailed submissions made before him by the assessee. 1.4 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant was dealing in a commodity like warranty. 7.5 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the submissions of the appellant that the warranty charges were an item debitable to profit and loss account and therefore could not be included in calculating the cost of re...
Tag this Judgment!