Delhi Court December 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.
Nirmal Arora Vs. Bydberg (India) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT207
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) The petitioner is the tenant of shop no. 728, shibsahai Buliding, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi. A tripartite 208 agreement was entered into between Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as DSCSC), Shri P.R. Monga, Advocate, the Receiver appointed by the Delhi High Court of the said building and the petitioner to start a liquor vend from the said shop. The case of the petitioner is that originally for the last six years, the Dscsc has been running a liquor vend in shop no. 73 of the said building. Because of some dispute .between the tenant of shop no. 731 and the landlord, the Dscsc was required to vacate the said shop. A compromise was arrived at between Dscsc and the landlord and it was agreed that the liquor vend would be shifted from shop no. 731 to728. Respondent no. I who is an occupant of shop no. 727 filed a suit in the court of Sub Judge, Delhi being suit no. 489 of 1977 for permanent injunction against the pe...
Himachal Air Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)(14)LC607Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant company had started paying duty on Oxygen Gas produced by them w.e.f. 26.7.1983. Later on, on 29 3.1984, they submitted a refund claim of duty of Rupees 28,941.89 paid by the appellant company during the period 26.7.1983 to 27.3.1984 on the ground that the clearances of the Oxygen Gas did not exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs and was nearly to the tune of Rupees 1,83,708.00.The refund claim was filed by the appellant company herein on the ground that they were not aware of the conditions of Notification of 83/83 date 1.3.1983. On 28.3.1984, they realised that their clearances would not in any case, be exceeding Rs. 7.5 lakhs-the limit of exemption granted in the said notification. The refund claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that they did not claim exemption under Notification 83/83-CE dated 1.3.1983, an assessee is required to make a declaration to the effect that he is not likely to clear the goods exceeding ...
Life Line Systems P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC298Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed the Bill of Entry No. 213201 dated 27-10-1987 covering the import of (i) Suction Cathetor; (ii) Pentional Duakusis; and (iii) Surgical Drapes. The Importer claimed the release of the goods under Appendix-VI of AM-85-88 Policy. They aiso claimed concessional assessment under Notification No. 208/81 in respect of (i) Intravenous Canula and Tube; (ii) Surgical Drapes; and (iii) Paediatric Duodinal Tubes.2. A show cause notice was issued calling upon them to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated Under Section III(d) of the Customs Act in the absence of a valid licence. The case of the department is, that, what was claimed as Intravenous Canula and Tube was nothing but Intravenous Cathetor. Further it is stated that the item (ii) imported was "Surgical Drapes" whereas SI. No. 38 of List 2 of Appendix-6 of AM-85-88 Policy and Sl. No. 22B of List B of Notification 208/81'covered "Surgical Tapes". The Paediatric Duodinal Tubes were not covered under ...
Electra (Jaipur) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD236(Delhi)
1. This [is a case where the issue involved is whether the payment of commission by the asses-see for what was described as procurement of business could be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83.2. The assessee is a private limited company located at Jaipur in the Industrial Area manufacturing Transformers of different kVA. During the year it supplied mostly to Rajasthan State Electricity Board and also to Punjab State Electricity Board. The supplies made to Punjab State Electricity Board were 302 transformers of 63 kVA as against 240 transformers to Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The total turnover was of the region of Rs. 53,25,000 as against Rs. 1,10,83,000 in the immediately preceding assessment year. Though there was a steep fall in turnover, the assessee claimed that it had to pay a commission of Rs. 30,000 to one Shri Vineet Mehta to procure orders from Punjab State Electricity Board. The claim of the assessee before ...
income-tax Officer Vs. India International Centre
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD224(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), New Delhi dated 5-8-1985 relating to the assessment year 1982-83. By this order, the 1d. CIT(A) 'quashed' the assessment made by the ITO, Trust Circle-I, New Delhi Under Section 10(2) of the H.R. Tax Act. We have heard the parties. We have perused the orders of the authorities below and considered the relevant material on record. We do not find any justification for an interference in the order of the 1d.CIT(A) at the instance of the revenue for the following reasons.2. The assessee, India International Centre was registered under the Societies Registration Act, XXI of 1860 on 9th day of March. 1959.After the buildings for housing the centre were constructed, its inauguration was performed on January 22, 1962 by the then Vice President of India, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan. The inauguration was scheduled by the President of India but on account of the absence of the President, the Vice President inaugurated the Centre...
Kasturi Lal Vs. Collector of Customs New Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT17
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J.1. By this writ petition it is prayed that the Panchnamas dated 21st August, 1987 filed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' whereby the goods of the petitioner were taken away by the Customs Officers may be quashed and the said goods may be ordered to be released. 2. It appears that certain Panchas were called by the Central (Preventive) Branch of Delhi Collectorate to witness the search of the business premises of the petitioner at Nai Sarak, Delhi. By virtue of the search authorization, the search was conducted and the goods of the descriptions mentioned in the Panchnamas were recovered. In the Panchnama, Annexure 'A' it is stated that the Proprietor, Shri K.L. Nagi, petitioner,produced the purchase bills of the said goods. It is then recited in the Panchnama 'on reasonable belief by the Customs Officer kept the above said (recovered) goods under detention and take over the same under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 for further verification of the lawful importation...
Kalawati Vs. Shri Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT403
H.C. Goel, J. (1) Smt. Kalawati, plaintiff/appellant, filed a suit against the defendants for a decree of possession by pre-emption of the house No. 4263, Gali Punjabiyan, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The allegations of the plaintiff in the plaint are that she is the owner of property bearing No, 4264 (new), Gali Punjabiyan, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Siri Chand, defendant No. 1, was the owner of property No. 4264 in question which is contiguous to the plaintiff's property No. 4263. Defendant No. I sold out his property bearing No. 4263,, for a sum of Rs. 70,000.00 , means of a registered sale deed executed on 31st July 1984 in favor of Ved Parkash Katyal, defendant No. 2. The further allegations of the plaintiff are that the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (for short, the 'Act') are applicable to the property. No. 4263 in question and, besides, that the custom of pre-emption also prevails in the walled city of Delhi, wherein the property in question is situated....
Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. Insurance Vs. Japan Airlines Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)ARBLR81(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT190
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) M/S Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. Insurance, is a partnership firm duly registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. having its office at New Delhi. The present petition has been filed by petitioner under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for extension of time for making the award. (2) It has been alleged in the petition that petitioner was appointed by respondent in 1977 as General Sales Agent for the territories of Andhra Pradesh and Karnatka on the terms and conditions as incorporation in the Agreement dated February 1,1977. Vide letter dated April 20,1983, it is alleged by the petitioner, respondent illegally, arbitrarily and unilaterally terminated the aforesaid agreement. On account of the termination of agreement and also for withholding the dues of petitioner, disputes and differences arose between the parties. The Agreement contained arbitration clause and petitioner and respondent by exchange of letters appointed their respective arbitrators Shri N...
Mangat Ram Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT1; 1988LabIC2628
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The appellant Mangat Ram was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered his wife Sheela on the night of 19th & 20th April, 1983 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by Shri J.D. Kapoor, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant has challenged the legality of the judgment of conviction passed on 29th February, 1984. The appellant further challenges the validity of the order dated the 3rd March, 1984 sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. (2) At the outset we may notice that the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence only. According to the learned trial Judge, the circumstances proved by the prosecution are so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for 'conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.' The trial Court has relied upon Bakshish Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1971 C L J 1452. In paragraph 54 of the impugned judgment, the circumstances have been...
Mahinder Kumar (Jagdeep) Vs. Kiran Bedi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ41; 1988RLR349
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Shri Jagdeep and Shri Mahinder Kumar claim to have been working as Chowkidars of Block A and C in Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi, for the last 10 years. Their duties are to keep a watch on the stores of vegetables/fruits etc., the goods brought to the market for auction. In return, they are given commission ranging between Rs.10.00 to Rs. 100.00 per mensum according to the quantum of the business of the respective traders. In case of any loss of goods on account of theft/pilferage, the petitioners are required to compensate the traders.(2) It is their case that S/Shri Rajinder Kumar, Sri Lal @ Kashmira Lal and his brother Harish are known bad characters of the area. These persons wanted to break the system of chowkidars. They are alleged to have shot dead one Rajinder @ Lala on 10-12-85 in broad day light. Both the petitioners were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Mahinder Kumar lodged the F.I.R. No. 999/85 with Police Station Adarsh Nagar, under Section 302 Indian...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »