Delhi Court January 1987 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.
Jagjit Singh Chadha Vs. M.J. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT235
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) The petitioner instituted a petition for eviction of the respondent from the ground floor of property no. F-120 Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi comprising of one room, kitchen and bath-cum- latrine under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondentnetition was granted leave to defend and contest the said petition. On 11-9-85 when the case was listed for the evidence of the petitioner, a prayer was made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner for an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner was out of India. The Additional Rent Controller however refused to grant adjournment and closed the evidence of the petitioner and since there was no evidence in support of the averments in the petition also dismissed the main petition. It is this order of the Addl. Rent Controller which has challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act. (...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jay Enterprises and 5 ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC28
1. These are appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad against the orders of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture phenol formaldehyde for captive consumption out of raw materials - Mela-mine, Formaldehyde, Phenol, Methanol, Caustic Soda, Hexamin and Hydrochloric Acid for use in the manufacture of laminated sheets. The process of manufacture as seen from the record is as under :- "Formaldehyde is pumped into reaction vessels and thereafter melamine is added with constant stirring. Hydrochloric acid in very small quantity is added to bring down the PH (to accelerate the reaction). Thereafter, the temperature is increased to 60 to 80C, as required and thereafter the same is brought down to 60C. At that time some quantity of caustic soda or methanol, as the case may be, is being added. In some cases the water is separated from formaldehyde and in remaining cases water is not taken out." The chemistry of reaction ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Oswal Vanaspati and Allied
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT3TriDel
1. As the issue involved in these two appeals is common, this combined order will dispose of both of them.2. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate of the respondents made a preliminary objection that the authorisation of the Collector was confined to only one ground as follows but the Assistant Collector in his appeal had taken many other grounds including those on merits :- "It is well established practice that where the principles of natural justice have not been observed by an adjudicating authority, the appellate authority remands the case for de novo adjudication after following the principles of natural justice. In this case, if in the opinion of the Collector (Appeals) the party was not apprised of the evidence (collected by the Department) against the party before deciding the cases and thereby there was violation of natural justice, the Collector (Appeals) could have remanded the cases for 'De novo' adjudication after observing the principles of nat...
Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT471TriDel
1. M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. despatched and cleared axle cuttings and punches, and end cuttings and side cuttings of sheets. The Collector says in his order that the clearances were without payment of duty to another factory under AR-3As and GP-2s under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. His Superintendent of Central Excise alleged that the goods were cleared free of duty under notification No.150/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 which was not permissible, because under that notification only specified types of scraps were allowed clearance free of duty. He alleged that the assessees entered the goods in their AR-3As and GP-2s as butts and shorts which are specific in the notification.2. The dispute before us, therefore, is only whether the goods described by the Collector in his order as axle cuttings and punches, and end cuttings and side cuttings are butts and shorts which qualify for exemption under notification No. 150/77-CE. Both sides accept that the other condi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, L/H of R. Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Del)195
S.S. Chadha, J.1. These petitions under s. 256(2) of the Act, 1961 seek a direction to the ITAT to state a case and refer the stated questions of law. 2. It is conceded by Mr. Anoop Sharma, the ld. counsel for the assessed that in each of these years, the question about the rental income from the properties agreed to be purchased by the assessed as per the agreements of 1955 and 1959 whether assessable of law and should be referred. In our view also the question of law arises. 3. For the reasons recorded in ITC 161 of 1977, question Nos. 2 and in ITC 184/77, question No. 3 in ITC 188/77, the question 5 and 6 ITC 41/78 do not raise any questions of law. 4. Accordingly, the petitions are partly allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the aforesaid question as framed in each of the years relating to the rental income from the properties agreed to be purchased as per agreements of 1955 and 1959 to this Court. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gun Nidhi Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: [1987]168ITR282(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. 1. These petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pray for a direction to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (for short called 'the Tribunal'), to state the case and refer questions Nos. 6 to 9 to this court in addition to questions Nos. 1 to 5 already referred. 2. The year of assessment is 1963-64. The assessed received rental income from a property which he had agreed to purchase from M/s. Bharat Insurance Co. under the agreements of 1955 and 1959. The assessed had submitted the details of receipts and expenses from such rental income which disclosed an excess of Rs. 11,973 on the receipt side and this excess was worked out after deducting interest of Rs. 43,482. The Income-tax Officer held that the interest of Rs. 43,482 was not allowable and that the rental income was also taxable and thus added the income of Rs. 55,455. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the assessed could have borrowed money...
ishtiaq Ahmad Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes615; 31(1987)DLT356
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The appellant was convicted under section 436 Indian Penal Code by an order dated 21-4-86 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The appellant has made a grievance against the said conviction and sentence. (2) Briefly staling the charge against the accused is that on 26th November 1984 at about 5.45 Pm the appellant committed mischief by setting on fire a Jhuggi belonging to one Smt. Veer Wati near house No. 27 Sarai Kaley Khan. A report in respect of this incident allegedly was first conveyed to the police control room on telephone by someone wherein no mention about the accused having set the Jhuggi on fire has been made. The only words used in this document Ex. Public Witness 6/A is that somebody was quarrelling after getting drunk. It was this information actually which brought the conc...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Aryan Di Hatti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT213
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This revision petition by the defendant is directed against the order dated 9-8-85 passed by the learned Trial Judge whereby the evidence of defendant was closed. (2) I have looked into the record and I find that the defendant has availed of four opportunities and inspire of that neither any witness was summoned nor any witness was present. In this situation normally no error can be found with the impugned order. It is clear beyond doubt that the defendant has been highly negligent in prosecuting the case. (3) Mr. Talwar has, however, brought to my notice the peculiar features of the suit which in my opinion may be prejudicial to the public as a whole if the defendant is not allowed to lead evidence. After considering the entire circumstances of the case, I allow this petition and direct that one more opportunity should be given to the defendant to produce its entire evidence at its own responsibility. Mr. Talwar states that the petitioner/defendant will not ask fo...
Ramesh Provision Store Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ107
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India challenge the notification dated August 5, 1985 issued by the Government of India in modification of the earlier notification dated May 22, 1984 whereby the stock limit of sugar was fixed to 250 quintals and 10 days limit was prescribed for the disposal of the fresh stock from the receipt of fresh arrival in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966. By the impugned notification dated August 5, 1985 the stock limit is the same but the time limit for disposal of the stock has been reduced to 7 days. The impugned notification is averred as arbitrary unreasonable, impracticable, impossible to implement and vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The license of the petitioner was suspended by the second impugned order dated October 28, 1985 and the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari.(2) The petitioners are commission agents, dealers and sto...
Shashi Bhushan Etc. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes514; 31(1987)DLT218
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) Appellants Shashi Bhushan and Rosban Lal both brothers were convicted under Sections 452 and 323, Indian Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi but instead of sentencing them to undergo imprisonment, benefit of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code, was extended to them and they were ordered to be released on their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 3.000.00 each with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months undertaking to appear and receive sentence if called upon to do so by the Court and also undertaking to keep peace and be of good behavior. The prosecution's case in respect of the other two accused who were also put on trial namely Madan and Manmohan was not believed. (2) The case is on my board at Item No. I today. Unfortunately, the learned counsel for the appellants failed to put in his appearance. 1. have heard Sodhi Teja Singh and has fairly taken me through the record.(3) The facts of the prosecution case are that on 1-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »