Delhi Court February 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dr. A.P. Mittra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: [1987]168ITR570(Delhi)
1. These are applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. They arise in similar circumstances in the case of the same assessed in the case of the same assessed in relation to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1978-79. The controversy between the parties is as to whether certain properties are all includible in the assessment of wealth-tax of Dr. A. P. Mittra in the above assessment years or whether these properties should be assessed in the hands of Dr. Mittra, his wife and two sons in their respective shares said to have been allotted to them under a partition decree by a court in December, 1970. 2. It is not necessary to refer to the details of the various orders. On the one hand, the claim of the Department is that since Dr. Mittra is a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of law, there can be no assessment on him in the capacity of a joint family, that the so-called partition effected between him and his sons has n...
indubhai Patel and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT25; 1987(13)DRJ267
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) The question that requires determination in this criminal revision is : Whether an interim order of a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in a title suit, to maintain the status quo in respect of the disputed property, which is prior in time, can be defeated by an order of Sub- Divisional Magistrate under Sections 145 and 146 of Cr. PC. Even though the proposition appears to be simple but the points raised in the case have made it difficult to answer. To resolve the controversy a few relevant facts need mentioning.(2) Premises No. 7, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi is owned by the Trust called Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Samarak Trust. In May, 1977 the Trust let out the western wing of the first floor and the entire ground floor to Janata Party, a national political party at a monthly rent of Rs. 2100. Even since then, the Janata Party is in actual, exclusive and physical possession of the premises under their tenancy. Sometime in the year 1979, with the permission of...
Bachan Singh Vs. Khem Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT302
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This judgment will also dispose of civil revision (R) No. 1074 of 1985 as the point involved in both the cases is the same and the petitioner is also the same. The difference is only to the extent that in both these cases the tenants are different. (2) The petitioner-owner filed two petitions under sections 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenants. Both the tenants are occupying one room and one kitchen each on the ground floor of the premises in question. The bona fide requirements as stated in paragraph 18(a) of the petition are, as under : '18(A): (i) that the premises let out for residential purposes to the respondent are required bona fide by the petitioner for occupation as a residence for himself and for the residence of his family members dependant upon him. The petitioner is the owner-lannlord of the premises in dispute. The petitioner has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi except ...
Rajasthan Pigments Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT161TriDel
1. In this matter, appellants are claiming the benefit of Notification No. 119/75 that is to say, payment of duty only on job charges collected from the suppliers of the raw material to whom the impugned goods are returned after manufacture. The goods manufactured are Lead Sub-Oxide and Litharge and the raw material supplied is Lead ingots.The lower authorities have held that the benefit of Notification 119/75 is not available to the appellants because they manufacture a totally new article out of the goods supplied by the customers.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Advocate appears on behalf of the appellants and submits that there is already substantial case law in support of the appellant's stand that emergence of a new product is no bar to availing of the benefit of Notification No. 119/75. In this connection, he has cited the following decisions: 1. 1983 E.L.T. 876 - Associated Pigments Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise & Ors.Bombay Food Pvt. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bom...
Andhra Sugars Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT269TriDel
1. The question for decision in all these appeals is whether Hydrogen Chloride Gas is Hydrochloric Acid or Anhydride thereof so as to merit classification under Item 14G of Central Excise Tariff as it stood at the material time.2. At the hearing of the appeal Shri K. Narasimhan, learned Advocate for the appellants drew the attention of the Bench to a decision of the Tribunal in Kothari (Madras) Ltd. (Now Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd.) v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras - 1986 (23) ELT 279 (Tribunal) and submitted that this decision had held Hydrogen Chloride gas as not being Hydrochloric acid or anhydride thereof and was not classifiable under Item 14G of Central Excise Tariff.3. Shri Shishir Kumar, the learned SDR representing the respondent agreed that the decision covers the issue of classification of the product in question and that the same has been answered against the Revenue. He, however, generally defended the impugned orders so as to secure the rights of the Revenu...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC247Tri(Delhi)
1. These six appeals have been filed by the department. They are inter-connected and deal with a common issue. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this combined order.2. The common issue involved is regarding valuation of the motor vehicles manufactured by the respondents for the purposes of assessment of central excise duty and determination of consequential refund due to the respondents as a result of the Madras High Court judgment. This judgment was in favour of the respondents and had declared that main dealers of the respondents were not their related persons.3. The present controversy started with the coming into force of the new Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on 1-10-1975.In accordance with the requirements of the new section, the respondents, by their letter dated 23-9-1975, disclosed their marketing pattern in the following terms :- Our products in Clause 1 above manufactured at our works at Ennora, Madras are distributed to our various customers al...
P.C. Joshi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC667Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case, appellant has imported one revolver (Smith & Wasson) through post parcel which he says has been sent to him by his first cousin, who is running a restaurant in U.K. and is a British citizen.He submitted before the Assistant Collector that it was a free gift and that no C.C.P. had been obtained for the import of the revolver. He requested that he be given release of the revolver on payment of Customs duty. In the order-in-original, the Assistant Collector confiscated the revolver absolutely under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. When the matter went Up in appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), he observed that apart from seeking lenient view, the appellant has not put forth any legal point requiring re-consideration of the impugned order. He, therefore, rejected the appeal.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal appears on behalf of the appellant. He submits that the revolver is meant for bonafide personal use of the appellant and that the District authorities, aft...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Koilite Inds. P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC525Tri(Delhi)
1. The department has come forward with this appeal against the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, dated 14-6-1982.2. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand for differential duty after classifying the indicator lamps under sub-item 1 of Item No. 32 in view of Trade Notice No. 22/Electric Bulbs 3c Tubes-2/1980, dated 21-1-1980. In the appeal, the Appellate Collector held that the Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta had issued subsequent Trade Notice No. 223/Electric Bulbs & Tubes-4/1980, dated 3-12-1980 wherein the earlier Trade Notice (mentioned supra) was withdrawn. Instructions were issued to decide the earlier cases as if the said Trade Notice did not exist. The appeal was allowed. It is seen from the records that the Government wanted to review the matter because the indicator lamps would be classifiable as electrical lighting under sub-item (4) of Item No. 32 in view of the Trade Notice dated 21-1-1980. The view held by the Appellate Colle...
Azad Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT34; 1987(13)DRJ70
1. Azad Singh, appellant was convicted for the offence under S. 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years. The period already undergone by him was set off by virtue of S. 428 Cr.P.C. He filed the appeal through Superintendent, Jail. At his request, Miss Nandita Chandra, Advocate was appointed amices curiae. She worked hard on the case and has ably put the arguments before this Court. 2. The circumstances under which Azad Singh was apprehended in brief, are : that one Shri Jai Parkash along with his family members was residing at House No. WZ-162, Sadipur, New Delhi. Azad Singh accused was in occupation of a nearby house bearing No. WZ-171. He was living along with his family and parents. As the story goes, one Shri Harkesh nephew of Jai Parkash had illicit relations with the wife of Azad Singh. He was spending all his salary on that woman. Ramesh is the elder brother of Harkesh. He was aware of this relationship. Few days prior to the date of the incident, Rames...
D.C. Kapoor Vs. A.K. Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi375
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Ncs. 2453186, 2213186 and 1608186, filed by Shri D. C. Kapoor, Shri N. C. Jam and Shri R. B. Singh respectively, whereby they have challenged the orders of suspension passed by National Co-operative Consumer Federation of India, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation'). (2) The respondent-federation is a registered cooperative society which wan initially registered under the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. With the promulgation of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the respondent-federation was covered by the provision's of the said Act. (3) The petitioners were working in the said federation. Shri D. C. Kapoor v/as the Chief Marketing Adviser, Shri N.C. Jain was the Assistant Manager, Grade I and Shri R. B. Singh was Regional Manager. By orders dated 6th May, 1986 issued by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »