Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1987Delhi421
Y.K. Sabharwai, J. (1) Anjali Sharma was a student of Xth class in Seventh Day Adventist High School, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as 'School'). The school is affiliated to Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'Council'). The council has various schools affiliated to it all over India. Anjali appeared in examinations (known as Icse, Examination) conducted by the Council in March, 1986. The results were declared in May, 1986. Anjali failed because in compulsory subject of English, she secured only 28 marks. She secured pass marks in all other subjects. Anjali claims that as she is a brilliant student and did her papers very well, she was surprised and shocked to learn that she has failed. On rechecking the Council confirmed that the result as already declared was correct. (2) Anjali through her mother Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma filed C. W. 2293/86 in this court alleging serious malafides against the school authorities. It was also alleged in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(41)ELT587TriDel
1. Since all the appeals involve common issues, a common order is being passed. A copy of the order will be placed in each of the appeal files.2. Question involved here in these appeals is whether Lauryl alcohol is to be classified under Heading 15.08/13 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as claimed by the respondents herein or under Heading 29.01/45 as claimed by the department.3. Learned SDR appearing for the appellant-Collector has fairly conceded that the issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered by the Tribunal's order No. 548-555/84-C, dated 21st August, 1984.Learned SDR has reiterated the various grounds set out in the appeal memoranda filed by the appellant-Collector. The learned Representatives of the respondents have, however, reiterated the various grounds dealt with in the Tribunal's order in their favour.4. We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal set out in the appeal memoranda. We feel that all the grounds taken by the appellant-Collector have been exha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 33(1987)DLT143; (1988)IILLJ302Del
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) Rule D.B. Respondent No. 1 Kaineshwar Dubey (hereinafter to be referred to as 'workman') was a railway employee employed as Khalasi (casual labour) with effect from 20-12-1969 and was dismissed from service by an oral order dated 29-5-1974. He brought a suit being Suit No. 233 of 1975 against the petitioner Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi for a declaration that his dismissal was illegal, void, inoperative, mala fide and a nullity and that he continued to be in service of the railway as. if he was not dismissed at all and was further entitled to all other benefits of the service. The decree for the aforesaid declaration was granted on 13-10-1981 by Shri Z. S. Lohat, Sub Judge 1st Class as a result of which his dismissal from service was held as void and was further-held to have continued in service and also entitled to all the service benefits. This decree was passed after contest by the petitioner (2) The firs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1988(14)LC146(Delhi)
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 Excises 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 trimming 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 drilling, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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...
Tag this Judgment!