Delhi Court January 1989 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.
Prabha BhasIn Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi244; 1989RLR113
Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18th November, 1988 of Shri S.K. landon. Administrative Sub-Judge, Delhi whereby he had directed that the brothers and sisters of the deceased be also imp leaded as respondents in the petition as they are necessary parties. (2) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Prabha Bhasin, wife of the deceased had filed an application for grant of Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of the movable property left by her husband, Shri Krishan Kumar Bhasin. In the said application it was submitted that apart from the petitioner, the deceased had also left one married daughter namely Smt. Poonam Bawa as an heir and that deceased bad died intestate. in course of time said Smt. Poonam Bawa is said to have filed an affidavit bringing out that she bad no objection to the grant of Succession Certificate with regard to moveable property of her deceased father t...
Tuldlep Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT334
P.K. Bahri J. (1) -TULDEEP Singh who was convicted for an offence punishable' under 'Section 20 Part Ii of N.D.P.S. Act vide judgment dated January 20 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years vide subsequent order dated January 25 1988 by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi has filed this appeal through jail against his conviction and the sentences. As the appellant was not in a position to engage any counsel, Shri SK. Dubey, advocate was appointed as amices curiae and I have heard arguments advanced by him and also heard the arguments of the counsel for the State. Although the appeal is barred by five days yet I have heard the arguments on merits. (2) The appellant was apprehended on 15th January 1987 at about l 50 P M at the Bus Stand D.D.A Flats Kalka Ji while he was in possession of about 7 Kg. 800.grams of charas. S.I. Ram Kumar then posted in poli...
Master Uma Shankar Alias Bunty Vs. Amrit Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC418
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is a most unfortunate appeal filed on behalf of Shri Uma Shankar son of Shri Sarup Chand, who suffered serious injuries on 29-6-1973 caused by Car No. DHA 4265, insured with respondent No. 4. As a result of the injury the appellant got fracture on the right femur, (the thigh bone) and crushing of the left foot metatarsal (small bone of the foot). He was removed to Irwin Hospital, where he remained as indoor patient till 11-7-1973. He was then admitted as indoor patient in A.I.I.M.S., where he remained till 17-8-73. As the appellant was only six years old his father Sarup Chand was appointed by the Tribunal as the next friend and guardian for the purposes of the case. The said guardian did not take any interest in the prosecution of the application for compensation before the Tribunal in spite of a number of opportunities. Nothing was done by the next friend in the case. The Tribunal had, thereforee, to dismiss the claim application on 2-7-79. After the dismissal of ...
Cimmco Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC292Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Air Drive Reservoirs manufactured by the appellants in their factory and fitted to Bottom Discharge Hopper Wagons are metal containers within the meaning of Item 46 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (the Schedule is referred to hereafter as 'CET'). The other issue which was before the adjudicating authority, namely, whether the removal of such reservoirs within the factory for captive consumption constituted removals within the meaning of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is not in issue before us, as per the statement made at the Bar by Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Counsel for the appellants, since it has already been settled by the Supreme Court's pronouncements. The appellants' contention is that Air Drive Reservoir is a component part of their manufactured product, namely, Railway Wagons falling under Item 68 and are made according to design and specifications provided by the customer. It is...
Hanuman Prasad and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT256
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This Writ Petition was expedited at the request of the counsel for the petitioners. However, at the time of the hearing the petition was called out twice but neither the petitioners, nor Advocate is present. I proceed to dispose of the petition on merits, as I need not to dismiss it in default, the CP.C. being not applicable. (2) The petitioners are employed by the contractors in service of Oil and Natural Gas Commission. They claim that they are the employees of the Commission as the contract labour have been abolished by Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. It is claimed in the Writ Petition that a writ should be issued to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and also to give them wages and benefits equal to their regular counter-prarts. They also prayed for the relief of awarding all arrears in the difference of wages and benefits between the petitioners and their regular counter-parts. (3) The counter...
B.R. Mehta Vs. Atma Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1989
Reported in: 37(1989)DLT416; 1989(17)DRJ74
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) An important question of law which has arisen in this appeal is whether the Rent Controller can pass a composite order disposing of the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) read with Sections 14(2) and 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant is a tenant of the ground floor of House No. 2/14, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. The said premises were taken on rent at Rs. 340.00 per month from the respondent who is the landlady and owner of the premises in question. (3) On 12th July, 1977 the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona tide requirement and also on account of non-payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3100- up to30th June, 1977. The appellant-tenant claimed that he had spent some money on carrying out the repairs and white washing of tile premises in question. By an interim older dated 19th April, 1978 passed under Se...
Vickers Sperry of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC207Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the two demands of Central Excise duty for Rs. 4,200/- and Rs. 26,273/- which have been confirmed against them by the lower authorities.2. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that exemption Notification No. 167/79-Central Excises, dated 19-4-1979 as amended by Notification No. 187/79, Central Excises, dated 10-5-1979, fully exempted parts and accessories of motor-vehicles and tractors, including trailers, if intended for use in further manufacture of excisable goods subject to the condition that if such use was in a factory of another manufacturer, the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, should be observed. The show cause notices dated 30-8-1979 issued to the appellants stated that they had cleared oil hydraulic pumps to M/s. Harsha Tractors Ltd. and M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (International Tractor Division) "without payment of duty under the pretext of Chapter X procedure". The appellants ...
Supersnacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT60TriDel
1. The appellants bring M.G. Poster Paper and Glassien paper falling under sub-heading 4802.99 as an input, a packing material for their final produce biscuits manufactured by them. Before M.G. poster paper and Glassien paper are used as a packing material for biscuits these are required to be printed and waxed. For this process they send the M.G. poster paper and Glassien paper to a paper converter and bring the same back for their ultimate use in the packing of biscuits manufactured by the appellants. Therefore, they applied to the departmental authorities under Rule 57-F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and later to the Collector of Central Excise for removing the said inputs (M.G. poster paper and Glassien paper) for the necessary processing as mentioned above and receiving them back in their factory before their use for the purpose of packing their final product. In response to this request dated 29-9-87 the learned Additional Collector vide his order dated 19-5-1988 has info...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas13(Delhi); (1989)78CTR(Del)106
Leila Seth, J.1. By these five applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax prays that the Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following common question of law (though the amounts differ for each year and the question is also slightly differently worded) for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of amounts as guarantee commission to the directors is an allowable deduction in computing the assessed's profits from business ?' 2. Income-tax Case no. 225 of 1984 relates to the assessment year 1972-73 and the amount is Rs. 2,60,416, Income-tax case No.64 of 1985 relate to the assessment year 1973-74 and the amount is Rs. 2,55,822, Income-tax Case No. 65 of 1985 relates to the assessment year 1971-72 and the amount is Rs. 2,55,822, Income- tax Case No. 240 of 1982 relates to the assessment year 1970-71 and the amount is Rs.3,20,889 and Income-tax Case ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR516(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. By these five applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax prays that the Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the following common question of law (though the amounts differ for each year and the question is also slightly differently worded) for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of amounts as guarantee commission to the directors is an allowable deduction in computing the assessed's profits from business ?' Income-tax Case No. 225 of 1984 relates to the assessment year 1972-73 and the amount is Rs. 2,60,416Income-tax Case No. 64 of 1985 relates to the assessment year 1973-74 and the amount is Rs. 2,55,822,Income-tax Case No. 65 of 1985 relates to the assessment year 1971-72 and the amount is Rs. 2.55,822,Income-tax Case No. 240 of 1982 relates to the assessment year 1970-71 and the amount is Rs. 3,20,889and Income-tax Case No. 24...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »