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.
Delton Sales (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD168(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi relating to assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 both dated 22-8-85 dealing with a common issue. We have heard the parties, carefully considered their rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below along with evidence on record.2. The assessee-company derives income from sales of wires and cables, electrical accessories and leasing of gas cylinders. It also deals in purchase and sale of gas cylinders. For its employees there is an agreement at the time of employment which entitles the employees to what is described as a privilege leave with pay of 30 days per year.The employees are entitled to carry forward the unavailed leave to the next year and the leave can be accumulated up to a maximum period of 180 days. The employees can also surrender the leave but up to maximum period of 15 days during one financial year or 30 working days once during two financial years. The employ...
Uma Chopra Vs. R.N. Jindal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT85; 1989LabIC437
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The short question for decision in this petition is whether a teacher is a workman or not within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('for short 'the Act'). (2) The petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Deaf & Dumb) on ad hoc and emergent basis in Government Lady Noyce School for Deaf and Dumb by an order issued by the Directorate of Social Welfare, Delhi Administration, Delhi, dated 17th August 1977. This School is under the control and management of the aforesaid Directorate. By an order dated 26th July, 1978 the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the Delhi Administration by an order dated 18th July, 1979 referred the dispute between the management and the petitioner for adjudication by the Labour Court. The terms of reference are as under: 'Whether the termination of services of Km. Uma Chopra vide management's order No. 1064 dated 27-7-1978 is illegal and/or...
Suhird Kamra Vs. Neeta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ282; 1988RLR200
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner husband has filed this petition-seeking to quash the proceedings against him filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) by his wife and his daughter the respondents herein. The circumstances leading to the filing of the present petition are that the first respondent and the second respondent through the first respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code- against the petitioner in the court of metropolitan magistrate on the ground that the petitioner though having sufficient means had neglected to maintain the respondents being his wife and the daughter, they being unable to maintain themselves. This petition under Section 125 of the Code was dismissed in default of non-appearance of the first respondent on 3-7-86. The first respondent applied for restoration of this petition on the ground that she was under the bona fide belief that the date ol' hearing was 30-7-86 which was. also the date noted in the d...
Union of India Vs. Globe Trading Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ253; 1988RLR148
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is if the arbitrator could award interest for the period during which arbitration proceedings were pending before him. This question has arisen in the following circumstances.(2) M/S. Globe Trading Corporation, respondent No. I, entered into a contract with the appellant Union of India for handling of the goods in the Bikaner Division of the Northern Railway for a certain period. The contract contained a clause constituting arbitration agreement between the parties. Disputes having arisen between the parties, respondent No. I filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. This was on 24-10-1969. In spite of objections by the Union of India, the petition was allowed and by order dated 23-5-1973 Mr. R.K. Sinha, Addl. District Judge, directed the arbitration agreement to be filed and referred the disputes to the sole arbitration of a person to be nominated by the General Manager, Northern Railway, as p...
Anand Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ79; 1988RLR208
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The difficulty in the way of the petitioner, however, is that the petitioner, prior to his filing of the petition, had accepted the award. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the respondents that having accepted the award the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. The petitioner, it is submitted, cannot be permitted to challenge the award, the benefits of which have already been taken by the petitioner. (2) If the award bad not been accepted by the respondent it was at liberty to challenge that part of the award which was in favor of the petitioner. By the letter of 30th August, 1985, the respondent thereforee, offered to the petitioner that it would accept the award, provided the petitioner did likewise. (3) It is true that the financial circumstances of the petitioner may have been such that he was compelled to accept the award and give a No Claims Certificate, but once he did so, I am afraid, he cannot be permitted to challenge t...
Sant Kumar Vs. Jogindrawati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT76
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) Respondent no. - Smt Shrimati Devi filed a petition for eviction against one Shri Shi.v Dass respondent no. 3 herein under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. An eviction order was passed against Shri Shiv Dass. In execution of that eviction order, Smt. Jogindrawati was dispossessed. Smt. Jogindrawati filed an application for restoration of possession in her favor which was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by his order dated 13-4-1987. Smt. Shrimati Devi went in appeal against that order which was rejected and it was held that Smt. Jogindrawati was entitled to restoration of possession. When Smt. Jugindrawati applied for restoration of possession one Shri Sant Kumar he. the petitioner herein objected and filed an application under Order 21 Rule 98 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming independent right as a tenant in the premises since 1985. The case of Shri Sant Kumar is that after Smt. Jogindrawati was dispossesse...
Aksharchhaya Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT82TriDel
2. The bench.took up the condonlation of delay as the appeal was delayed by a certain time. M/s. Aksharchhaya say that the delay was caused by the fact that they filed their appeal to the Government of India instead of this Tribunal. We consider that the delay should be condoned and so we condone it.3. M/s. Aksharchhaya appeal that the parts should be charged at the same rate as applicable to the main machine phototypesetter . They referred to Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI of Chapter 84 of the Custorns Tariff in Support of their claim. This provision specifically includes electrical arid electronic parts which are otherwise covered under 85.18/27. Therefore, parts under 85.18/27 must be classified with the main machine if they are used exclusively with the main machine.' The printed circuit boards cannot be used with any other type of machine, not even with different brands of phototypcselters. Hence, the part should be classified with the phototypeselter and the duty should be cha...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC251Tri(Delhi)
1. The question under consideration in this appeal is whether the goods described as "non-woven surgical dressings bandages" are covered by entry at S. No. 1 of Appendix 6 of the ITC Policy April 1985-March 1988. This appendix relates to items under open general licence. Entry at S. No. 1 reads as follows :- "Raw materials, components and consumables (non-iron and steel items) other than those included in the appendices 2, 3 Part-A, 5 and 8 and the eligible category of importer is actual users (Industrial)." The appellant contends that the aforesaid goods are covered by the aforesaid entry and therefore, no licence is required for import of the aforesaid goods.On the other hand, the department contends that the goods are covered by entry at S. No. 31 of Appendix 2, Part B which reads as follows :- "Fabrics, made from manmade fibres/yarns (excluding uninked nylon ribbon tape from 1/2" to 18-1/4" both the ends electrically welded required for the manufacture of typewriter/computer ribbo...
Lakhmi Chand Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi220; 1988(14)DRJ258; [1988]173ITR202(Delhi); 1988RLR117
P.K. Bahri, J.1. The only question which arises in this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated September 13, 1972, of Shri H. K. S. Malik, Senior Sub-judge, is as to what is the period of limitation prescribed for recovery of arrears of house tax due to the Municipal corporation of Delhi 2. Vide letter dated February 14, 1968, the Assistant Assessor and Collector (Recovery Cell) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had required the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 19,558.75 as arrears of house tax due in respect of property No. 3432-35/III, Ganda Nala, Mori Gate, Delhi, calculated up to the period ending March 31, 1967. It was mentioned in the said notice that in case the arrears of house tax are not paid on or before February 22, 1968, the same shall be recovered by the execution of distress warrant along with 20% penalty. This demand was challenged by the appellant by filing a civil suit on February 21, 1968, seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent-Corporation....
Anant Raj Agencies Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)ARBLR44(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT22; 1988(14)DRJ309
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) The plaintiffs M/s. Anant Raj Agencies has filed this Suit No. 1605A of 1985 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act and in pursuance thereof notice was issued to the defendant No. 2, the arbitrator, for filing the award in court and in pursuance thereof the award and its proceedings had been filed by him in the court. On 7th November, 1985, notice of filing of the award was accepted by Shri Manmohan Sarin, counsel for the plaintiffs and on 9th December, 1985 learned counsel appearing turn defendant No. I slated that he had filed objections against the award and the said objections are now 1.A. No. 185 of 1986. I now propose to dispose of this Suit No. 1605A of 1985 and the objections 1.A. No. 185 of 1986 by this order.(2) The objections are opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs and upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide orders dated, 26th September, 1985: '1. Whether the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceeding...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »