Delhi Court August 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.
Surinder Kumar Yadav and ors. Vs. Suvidya Yadav and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes645; 31(1987)DLT13; 1986RLR619
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This petition is directed against the order dated 6th December, 1985 passed by Shri P. K.Tain, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1984 which had in turn set aside the order dated 3rd February, 1984 passed by Shri R. S. Mahla, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby the accused-petitioners had been discharged in case Fir No. 437182 of Police Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in respect of offences u/ss 448/442/323/120-B/34 Indian Penal Code .(2) The F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No. 1 Smt. Suvidya Yadav and according to the Smt. she along with her husband and children had been residing in Flat No. J-16, Mig, Dda Flats, Prasad Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which had been taken by them from petitioner No. 2 Suresh Yadav in March 1980. She further alleged that they had paid a sum of Rs. 61,000 in foreign exchange and another sum of Rs. 36,000 to Suresh Yadav on account of the price in respect of this flat but on account of relationship no dee...
Bengal Iron Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC721Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India which on transfer to the Tribunal is being treated as an appeal.2. The entire controversy arose on a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector, Calcutta to the appellants on 24.4.1981. The appellants are manufacturers of iron and steel products falling under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff. They were availing exemption on such products, under Notification No. 75/67-CE dated 20.5.1967 upto 31.7.1980. This Notification was rescinded by Notification No. 113/80 with effect from 19.6.1980. It is alleged in the show cause notice that the appellants had cleared 73458.3 Kgs of forged or extruded products falling under Item 26AA (ia) for the period 1.8.1980 to 6.4.1981 without observing central formalities under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and without payment of central excise duty. The appellants in their reply, inter alia, contended that they have not been following the Set Off Procedure by...
Surinder Singh Vs. Tejinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ78
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) F.A.O. 189/84 is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree of Shri R.C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 27/7/1984 dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Said Act. F.A.O. 181/84 is also an applauder Section 28 of the said Act against the order dated 27/7/1984 of Shri R.C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 27 of the Act directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 to the wife towards compensation in respect of the articles mentioned in list, Ex. RW-1/1 and further directing the payment of the sum of Rs. 175.00 per month towards maintenance and education of the minor son. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order.(2) The case of the husband as set out in the petition and the defense of the wife as set out in the written statement has succinctly been set out in the judgment of the trial Court and may be s...
Munchur Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD468(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee-company is engaged in manufacture and sale of agricultural implements, X-Ray machines, etc. In addition to this, the assessee had rendered some technical services to an enterprise in German Democratic Republic under three agreements with the same party. The assessee received in all Rs. 46,28,856 as service charges, foreign allowance and expenses on staff as stipulated in the three agreements. These agreements had been approved by the board for the purposes of Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee-company had received Rs. 14,66,103 in convertible foreign exchange and the balance had been received in Indian rupees.2. Before the ITO, the assessee claimed that it should get the deduction of Rs. 14,66,103 under Section 80-O. The ITO was, however, of the view that under Section 80-O read with Section 80AB of the Act the as...
Bhagwan Das Kanodia and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: (1991)LC279Tri(Delhi)
1. Sixteen powerlooms, four each in the name of M/s. Manmohan Textiles (owner Bhagwan Das Kanodia); Vinod Textiles (owner Lakhmi Chand, Kanodia); Vijay Textiles (owner Chandrawati Kanodia) arid Rajinder Textiles (owner Chiranji Lal Bhotika) were working at Andheri. M/s.Surajmal Purshotam Das was said to be the firm which was running these sixteen powerlooms, though in the name of the four different entities as above mentioned. There is no dispute that the four owners above mentioned were close relatives and that the other firm above mentioned was their firm. On the allegation that the 16 powerlooms were working as a single unit and the cloth manufactured thereon was therefore, not entitled to benefit under Notification No. CER-8(28)/56, dated 5-1-1957 (as it stood during the material period 29-10-1962 to 31-8-1963), show cause notice was sent to the abovesaid five firms as to why duty evaded should not be demanded and penalty also levied, apart from ordering confiscation of the goods ...
Ram Sarup Vs. Devi Dayal Bhatia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes328; 30(1986)DLT414
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) The revision petitioner Ram Sarup filed a complaint against the respondents Devi Dayal Bhatia, Vinod Bhatia and Ajay Bhatia u/s 323/341/448/451/504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After recording the pro-summoning evidence Shri V.K. Shali, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, ordered the summoning of the accused persons vide bids order dated 8th September. 1983 except that he found no prima facie case against them u/ss 451/504 Indian Penal Code and the complaint in respect of those two offences was dismissed. (2) Feeling aggrieved with the summoning order passed by the learned Megistrate, the respondents filed two revision petitions-one respondent No. 1 and the other by respondents 2 and 3 and those were accepted vide order dated 21st Mach, 1985 passed by Mr. Mahesh Chandra, then Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi and the summoning order was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. (3) The complainant Ram Sarup feeling aggrieved with the ord...
The Management, the Co-operative Store Ltd. Vs. Ved Prakash Bhambri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT185
P.K. Babri, J.(1) This writ throws a challenge to the award dated May 24, 1986, given by Shri OP. Dwivedi, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, which award was published in the gazette dated July 3, 1986. (2) The petitioner is the Cooperative Store Limited and is running Super Bazar. Respondent-Shri Ved Prakash Bhambri was employed as Cashier with the petitioner since 1966. The services of Ved Prakash Bhambri as well as of some other employees were terminated with effect from May 1,1976, on the ground that their services were no longer required by the petitioner. Subsequently, almost all other employees were taken back in service. However, respondent-Ved Prakash Bhambri allegedly was not taken back as he had moved an application dated October 6 1966, addressed to the Account Officer staling that be was to go out of India ax he had secured a passport and he requested that his provident fund case be forwarded to the Provident Fund Commissioner for necessary action. It appears that the respondent-...
Shiv Devi Vs. Lt. Governor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: 1986RLR557
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This reference to a F.B. was made by one of us (Chadha J.) because of the conflict between the judgments delivered by different Division Benches of this Court. Actually there was no conflict between the various Benches regarding the effect and meaning of the Scheme called the' 'Large Scale Acquisition, Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961', prior to the decision recorded by a Bench consisting of Sachar J. and Wad J. in Krishan Kumar Malik vs Union of India. The view taken by the other Benches was that individuals whose land has been acquired as a result of the Chief Commissioner's notification would be entitled to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for making a residential building in certain circumstances. The question as to who was the person entitled to the benefit would depend on the question as to whose land had been acquired eventually, i.e. if the land belonged to 'A' when the notification u/s 4 was issued and it belonged to 'B' when th...
Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur Vs. R. Chatha Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT364
G. C. Jain, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.(2) By means of a registered lease deed dated December 8, l978 the petitioner, Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur. let out his 2' storeyed building-114, Sunder Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi to the respondent R. Chatha Ram, for residential purposes r a limited period of four years ending on December 8, 1982, after obtaining the permission of the Addl. Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). The reason given in the application seeking permission under Section 21 of the Act for not requiring these premises for the said period was that his son-in-law, Ashok Chawla was carrying on business in Bombay. He had died on April 13, 1978. There being nobody else, the petitioner was required to go to Bombay and stay there for a period of four years to look after his daughter, her two minor children and their business there and did not require the premises in dispute for this p...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Television Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC113Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) disposed of two appeals filed by the respondents, as the issue involved was identical. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents are manufacturers of television sets, which during the material period, were liable to central excise duty as ad-valorem duty. They filed price list which did not mention about the warranty charges which they were collecting from the Customers. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh held that warranty charges collected by the appellants were to be included in the assessable value and he ordered accordingly, by his separate orders No. 25/SC/V/81 dated 16.2.81 and 24/SC/V/81 dated 16.2.81 and 21/SC/81 dated 25.7.81. The respondents filed appeals against those three orders of the Assistant Collector.The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, by his order-in-appeal dated 26.11.1982 held that warranty charge was not required to be included in the assessable value and accord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »