Delhi Court August 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.
Savitri Devi and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi319
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) Smt. Savitri Devi, the present petitioner along with her son Naresh Kumar, since deceased, was summoned on a complaint by respondent No. 2, Smt. Nupur,for allegedly having committed an offence punishable under Section 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code. During the trial the petitioner moved an application on 17-5-1986 for the grant of exemption from personal appearance. The learned trial courtside its order dated 17-5-1986 allowed the application and exempted her personal appearance in Court till further ord (2) The first and, foremost contention of the petitioner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not and should.not have entertained the revision petition in as much as the order of the trial court was interlocutory one and a revision petition was not maintainable under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the discretion exercised by the learned lower court should not have been interfered with, which on the face ...
Rajendra Jaina Towers (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT216; 1988(14)DRJ125; 1988RLR42
T.P.S. Chawla, C.J. (1) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by M/s. Rajender Jaina Towers Private Limited. It sought various writs, directions or orders against the Delhi Development Authority. Mr. Rajender Jain, the Managing Director of M/s. Rajender Jaina Towers Private Limited, swore an affidavit in support of the petition. The petition was filed on 27/9/1986. It came on for preliminary hearing before a Bench comprising Ms. Justice Leila Seth and myself on 29/9/1986. We issued a direction for the production of certain records by the Delhi Development Authority. We also made an interim order that the petitioner should not be dispossessed of the plot, subject matter of the petition, till the next date. This interim order was continued from time to time. (2) In compliance with the direction, the record was produced by the Delhi Development Authority. Subsequently, an affidavit sworn by Miss Janak Juneja, Secretary of the Delhi Development Authority, was filed in ...
Durga Dass Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)Crimes579; 33(1987)DLT173; 1987(32)ELT652(Del)
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the validity of his detention which took place on 23-4-1987 in pursuance of a detention order passed on 28-4-1986. The detention order was passed on the basis of an event which took place on 19-4-1986 in which one Karim Yusuf, Ravinder Bali and one Satya Narain were hauled up for violation of the provisions of Customs Act. They were found smuggling foreign made gold. They were arrested by the D. R. I. Officers and on 20-4-1986. They were produced before the Duty Magistrate with an application for remand. Pursuant to this the house of the petitioner was searched at Jammu on 22-4-1986. The detention order as stated earlier was actually served on the detenu on 23-4-1987 since which date he is supposed to be in detention on the basis of this detention warrant. (2) The case of the petitioner is that he was all along in his house at Jammu and that on 13-4-1987 he was taken into custody by Jammu Police and was confined till 22-4-1987 w...
Umesh Das Seth Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: [1988]24ITD115(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri S. K. Chander, Accountant Member - All these appeals have been filed simultaneously on 16-2-1987. There is no dispute about the factum that each and every one of these appeals has been filed late by 402 days. The Registry of the Tribunal, thereforee, issued a notice to each of the appellants to show cause as to the reasons for delay. In each case, an Explanationn has been filed by the person concerned. The reason for delay given is that on an appeal filed against each assessment concerned in each case, the AAC made an order on 15-10-1985. This order was served upon each assessed on 11-11-1985. According to the assesseds, the main issue in appeal before the AAC was with regard to the valuation of interest of each assessed in the firm known as M/s. Narsingh Dass & Sons. The WTO had held that the genuineness of the above firm had not been proved and as such, the assets belonging to the firm were liable to be included in the hands of the respective partners as their individua...
Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC53
1. Brief facts leading to the application for rectification of mistake in the order in Appeal No. 928/86-A dated 22-8-1986 passed by me are set out in the said order in appeal dated 13-8-1986 passed by my learned brother Shri M. Gouri Shankar Murthy as the other Member of the Bench. These are as follows :- "(a) the appellant filed two price-lists on 15-9-1975 in relation to two of their products, namely 'Fromor' Ammonium Phosphate 28-28-0 and NPK 14-35-14 under Section 4(i)(a) of the Act disclosing the identical price of Rs. 2,930/- per M.T., inclusive of Central Excise Duty and agent's commission; (b) the assessable value in respect -of both the fertilisers was determined at Rs. 2,547.83 per M.T. (i.e. Rs. 2,930/- minus Central Excise Duty at 15% ad valorem amounting to Rs. 382.17 only) rejecting the element of agent's commission claimed. [The instant revision application now heard as an appeal does not relate to the inclusion of the agency commission in the assessable value. It does...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Del)15; [1988]173ITR89(Delhi)
1. Four questions have been suggested on behalf of the Commissioner. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, we reject the application following our order in ITC No. 173 of 1984 (CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (No. 1) : [1988]173ITR87(Delhi) ). Question No. 3 is directly governed by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1971]82ITR363(SC) and calls for no reference. So far as question No. 4 is concerned, the circumstances are similar to what has been dealt with in the order dated April 9, 1987, in ITR No. 49 of 1984 (CIT v. Master Gaurav Dalmia : [1987]168ITR458(Delhi) ). thereforee, reference of this question is also not called for. 2. This leaves only question No. 2 suggested on behalf of the petitioner. This question which has been raised no doubt appears to be a question of fact. Mr. Harihar Lal, learned counsel for the respondent strongly contended that the Income-tax Officer has not doubted that services were, in fact, rendered by the fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Cement P. Ltd. (No. 4)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR92(Delhi)
1. Two questions have been suggested on behalf of the Commissioner. Question No. 2 cannot be directed to be referred for the reasons we have mentioned in our order of even date in I. T. C. No. 89 of 1986 (CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (No. 2) : [1988]173ITR89(Delhi) ). Again, for the reasons stated in the same order, we direct the Tribunal to refer the first question to us for our decision but in the following modified form : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the payment to the field organisers was a payment in respect of services rendered and constituted a genuine business expenditure eligible for deduction ?' 2. The Tribunal is directed to refer the above question for the decision of this court. The application is disposed of. No order as to costs. 3. We have disposed of by separate orders today also I. T. C. No. 89 of 1986 (CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (No 2) : [1988]173ITR89(Delhi) ), I. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (No.3)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR91(Delhi)
1. Three questions have been proposed on behalf of the Commissioner. In our opinion, question No. 2 is a question concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute . (No. 2) : [1988]173ITR89(Delhi) ), which has been disposed of today, no reference of this question is called for. 2. So far as the first question is concerned, we direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question for our decision for the reasons set out in our order of even date in ITC No. 89 of 1986 (CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (No. 2) : [1988]173ITR89(Delhi) ) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the payment of Rs. 3,34,000 to the field organisers was payment made for services rendered and constituted genuine business expenditure eligible for deduction ?' 3. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, again we think it is a question of law. We, thereforee, direct the Tribunal to state a case and also refe...
Gurnir Singh Gill and anr. Vs. Saz International (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas197(Delhi); 1988(15)DRJ358
T.P.S. Chawla, C.J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956. It assails an order granting leave to amend the reply to a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of that Act. The order is dated 12th December, 1985. It deals with many applications which had been moved in the proceedings. But, the present appeal is confined to the decision on C.A. No. 746 of 1985, which sought leave to amend the reply, and was allowed. Although this application seems a simple one, the case is somewhat complicated and it seems necessary to give a resume to make the contentions comprehensible. (2) Surjit Kaur and Adarsh Kaur are sisters. In 1954, they were married. Their husbands were brothers and had settled in Panama. Surjit Kaur had a son, G.S. Gill. Adarsh Kaur had a daughter, who is now married and is known as Mrs. Noorien Kaur Gill Vanlaer. These children were foreign nationals. In 1968, both the sisters were divorced from their respective husbands. But they remained non-resident...
Metal Forgungs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC65; 1987(32)ELT15(Del); ILR1987Delhi218
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The main question for determination in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the steel flanges manufactured by the appellants are classifiable for payment of excise duty under tariff item No. 26AA(ia) or under item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 or both. Briefly, the relevant facts are as follows :- (2) The appellant company manufactures a number of steel products by forging process. The process of manufacture of their forged products consists of cutting of steel, pre-heating it, heating and beating of steel material till the final shape nearest to the shape desired by the customer and/or specifications is achieved. Thereafter, the extra/unwanted material is removed by either trimling or by gas cutting or by skin cutting and/or by rough machining, to achieve the shape and section nearest to the forged steel product required by the customers. These shapes and sections' are subjected to further processes of polishing and drilli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »