Delhi Court July 1988 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. R.B.G.M. Modi and Bros. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD349(Delhi)
1. All these four appeals filed by the Income-tax Officer, Con. Cir.XXVI, New Delhi are against the orders of the Commissioner (A)-IX, New Delhi, by which he cancelled the penalties imposed by the Income-tax Officer under Sections 273(a) and 271(1 )(c) in relation to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79.2. The assessee-company was deriving income apart from dividends, by acting as consultant to a firm called M/s Synfibre Sales Corporation, referred to hereinafter as 'firm' for the sake of convenience. The firm was the sole selling agent of M/s Modipon Ltd. The assessee-company advises the firm as to how it should organise its business. The firm receives sole selling agency commission from M/s Modipon Ltd. Out of that commission the firm has to give 10 per cent of its net profits subject to a minimum of Rs. 60,000 per annum to the assessee-company.This was the arrangement arrived at under an agreement entered into between the assessee-company and the firm on 18th September, 1968. I...
Competent Construction Company Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)ARBLR89(Delhi); [1989]65CompCas703(Delhi); 36(1988)DLT26; 1988(15)DRJ249
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This order will dispose of the application filed under section 20 read with sections 5, 9, 12 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, by a company which had entered into a contract with respondent No. 1 for the construction of 'Himachal Bhavan' at New Delhi. 2. On August 22, 1978, the work for construction of the said Bhavan was awarded to the petitioner. The contract provided that the work was to be completed on or before September 5, 1980. There was, however, delay in completion of the work. According to the petitioner, the delay was on account of the late handing over of the site of the work by respondent No. 1; besides, there were other acts of omission and commission on the part of respondent No. 1 which prevented the construction being completed within the stipulated time. 3. After the work was completed, the final bill was submitted. The bill, as submitted, was not passed in toto and certain deductions were made. According to the petitioner, the agreement between the pa...
Akhil Chit and Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. Ramdutt Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT405
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This civil revision is directed against the judgment and order of the Sub Judge, Delhi dated 27th November, 1986 in suit no. 336 of 1984. (2) The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner herein filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 7,600.00 against the defendants being amount towards balance under a pronote, interest @ 12 % per annum and notice expenses. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff company is doing chit fund business wherein a chit for Rs. 9.000.00 for 30 months and subscription of Rs. 300.00 per month was subscribed by defendant no. I who was declared a successful bidder on 10th June 1982 and was to get the amount of chit, after deduction of the offered bid of Rs. 3.150.00 . Respondents 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for re-payment of the future monthly subscription of a total sum of Rs 8,100.00 . A promissory note was executed by the respondents to that effect on 19th June 1982 accepting joint and several liability. The responde...
Suresh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes20; 35(1988)DLT411
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this appeal, Suresh, s/o 0m Parkash is challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. He also challenges the legality of the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi imposing imprisonment for life on him. The impugned judgment and the order of sentence were passed on 23rd October, 1984. Mr. Sud, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the prosecution evidence and also the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of , Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant did not lead any evidence. (2) After hearing counsel we are of the opinion that the allegation of the prosecution that the appellant herein had stabbed Hari Singh on 29th May, 1982 at about 7.30 P.M. in front of his (appellant's) house, has been conclusively proved. (3) We have no doubt in our mind that Public Witness .I Shri Bhagwan Dass, on whose statement, the F.I.R. was recorded and who had taken Hari Singh in an injured condition to the hosp...
Dhan Kumar Vs. Musaddi Lal JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT414
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is the tenant's petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated Sep. 14, 1972, of respondent No. 3, the Competent Authority constituted under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act 1956 (for short 'the Act'). By this order, the competent authority granted permission to respondent No. I, the landlord of the premises, to file proceedings for eviction against the petitioner. (2) The petition under S. 19 of the Act was filed on Dec. 24, 1970. It was against the petitioner and his brother Gopi Chand. both of whom were stated to be the joint tenants. Gopi Chand did not contest the petition as it appears he bad acquired an alternative accommodation. The petition was contested only by Dhan Kumar, the petitioner now before me. (3) At the outset it was pointed out by Mr. Y.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, about the futility of hearing this petition after 16 years of the Impugned order and by this time the status of the p...
Indian Organic and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC405Tri(Delhi)
1. When this matter came for hearing, Shri Surendra Mishra, Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri V.M. Doiphode, S.D.R. appeared for the respondent. Shri Mishra mentioned that he had filed a paper book on 16-6-1988. When put to Shri Mishra as to whether the paper book contains any document not considered by the lower authorities, he replied in the affirmative. It was made clear to him that since no application has been filed by the appellants for introduction of additional evidence, the documents which were not before the lower authorities for consideration could not be taken into consideration by us. Shri Mishra then said that he would not rely on the additional documents. He stated that he would rely on the documents mentioned against serials No. 1, 2, 3,4, 7, 8, 9 to 16, 19, 23 to 28, 30 to 39, 41 and 42 of the Index attached to the paper book. The learned S.D.R.had no objection to these documents being relied upon.2. As regards prior deposit of duty, Shri Mishra has subm...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT385
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) The Water Supply and Sewage Undertaking Karamchari Union was demanding the revision of pay scales of equivalent post on the basis of pay scales revised in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in September, 1967. The Delhi Municipal Corporation vide letter dated August 14, 1967 revised the pay scales of certain categories of posts in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking which were made applicable vide order dated September 6, 1967. The demand of the Union was discussed by the Commissioner in a meeting held on September 16, 1967 and the request was acceded to the extent that grades of those posts of Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking were recommended for revision which were identical to the posts of those grades revised by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking. Accordingly, by the resolution No. 532 dated July 27. 1970. the pay scale of Foreman i.e Rs. 210-380 was revised to Rs. 325-20-450 2S-475. (2) In the meanwhile, the Third Pay Commission had been constit...
Andrew Simon King Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)Crimes33; 35(1988)DLT435
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) This judgment disposes of Cr. Writ Petition No. 93 of 1988 and Cr. Writ Petition No. 94 of 1988 as the main question arising for consideration in both these petitions is common. (2) Andrew Simon King, who is the petitioner in C.. Writ No. 93 of 1988 and Lesniewski Piotr, who is the petitioner in Cr. Writ No. 94 of 1988 have been detained in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi by virtue of two separate orders dated the August 25. 1987 passed by the Administrator of the Union Territory 'of Delhi under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA). The said orders were passed with a view to preventing the petitioners from smuggling goods, viz., gold into India. The grounds of detention also dated the August 25, 1987 were served on the petitioners on August 31,1987, while they were in judicial custody. (2) The facts leading to the passing of the detention...
M.C. Katoch Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT1
B.N. Kirpal J. 1. This judgment will dispose of suit Nos. 1908-A, 1909-A and 1910-A of 1984 which are similar petitions under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act. 2. The petitioners in all the three cases had entered into contracts, each dated 29th September, 1981 with the Union of India for the construction of different parts of the same drain According to the petitioners the site was not made available to them with the result that they suffered losses. 3. It is alleged that the agreements dated 29th September, 1981 contained an arbitration clause being clause No. 25 which, inter alia, provided that all disputes arising out of the contract amongst the parties should be referred to sole arbitration of a person appointed by the Chief Engineer Irrigation & Flood, Delhi Administration, respondent No. 2. According to the petitioners disputes did arise and the said disputes have been enumerated in paragraph 13 of the petitions. It is the case of the petitioners that they invoked the ar...
Kapil Brothers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC437Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are required to deposit Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,75,459.52 and penalty of Rs. 20.000/-. The period covered by the demand is 1981-82 and 1982-83. The show cause notice was issued some 3 years later, on 6-2-1986, by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The show cause notice was under Section 11 -A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and it invoked the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11-A which allowed the 5 years period for issue of the show cause notice where suppression of facts or fraud is alleged. After 28-12-1985, the amended Section 11 -A required that such show cause notices should be issued only by the Collector of Central Excise and not by an officer lower in rank than the Collector. In a case where such a show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in their judgment at 1988 (34) ELT 442 (Guj.) - Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., held that the show...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »