Delhi Court March 1990 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. R.S. Chaudhry
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR611(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. By this application, the petitioner seeks reference of two types of question, the first relates to the valuation of the assessed's interest in the property No. 7, Anand Lok, New Delhi, and the other type of question sought to be raised pertains to the issue whether the superstructure on plot No. 7, Anand Lok, New Delhi, could be regarded as owned by the association of persons or not and what was share of the assessed. 2. In the respect of the assessment year 1978-80, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under the Income-tax Act, has already referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act two question of law, the first of which pertaining to the issue with regard to the ownership of the house being that of the association of persons or not. 3. In our opinion, the question with regard to the valuation of the house is a pure question of fact but the other questions relate to the existence of an association of persons and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in ...
Punjab National Bank Finance Ltd. Vs. Shital Prasad JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: 1990(19)DRJ10
R.L. Gapta, J.(1) These there Ias have been moved on identical grounds on behalf of the defendants 2, 3 and 5. thereforee, this order will dispose of all these IAS. (2) It is alleged in these Ias that the present suit is directed against defendant No, 1 who is alleged to have taken some loan from the plaintiff. The substance of the allegations in the plaint are that defendant No. 1 diverted the loan amounts to defendants 2, 3 and 5 and acquired assets in their names. In other words the plaintiff, so it is alleged, has set up the case of benami against the defendants. It is then alleged that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants herein and also without admitting in any manner, any of the allegations made in the plaint, the defendants submit that in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the first Act), the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain any suit on the basis of the plea of benami. thereforee the suit of the plaintif...
David R. Hall Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ143; 41(1990)DLT161
P.K. Babri, J.(1) The appellant has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 20 & 28 read with Section 33 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'NDPS Act') vide judgment dated December 24, 1988 and has beer sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh) and in default to undergo further rigorous Imprisonment for two years on the first count and similar sentences have been awarded on the second count with the directions that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently, vide subsequent order dated January 2, 1989. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentences. (2) Facts, as have come out in the trial, in brief, are that Si Ram Kishore was on duty a.t the Palam Airport for purposes of security checking at the International Departure Hall on December 23, 1985 and at about 8.30 A.M. the security checking in respect of Syrian Airlines Fligh...
Savitri Devi and ors. Vs. Shanti Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT323; II(1990)DMC438
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This application under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Cadet of Civil Procedure has been filed in the suit for declaration pending since 1982. The plaintiffs in the suit are three in number. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that release deed dated 15th May, 1968, executed by late Shri Charan Kumar in favor of his mother, the defendant, is invalid and that the plaintiffs have shares in the property subject matter of the release deed. The first plaintiff is the wife of deceased Shri Charan Kumar and plaintiffs 2-3 arc respectively the son and daughter of late Shri Charan Kumar, both these plaintiffs being minor. It is stated that the property was an ancestral property in the hands of Shri Charan Kumar and could not be subject matter of any release deed. The first plaintiff claims .to be owner of l/8th share of the property and plaintiffs 2 and 3 respectively 5/8th and l/8th thereof. Various issues were framed in the suit and one of the issues being whether the...
Aggarwal Dharmarth Hospital Society (Regd.) Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD465(Delhi)
ORDERPer Kathuria, Accountant Member - This appeal by the assessed for the assessment year 1981-82 is directed against the order dated 23-10-1986 passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, upholding the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The return of income in this case for the assessment year 1981-82 was required to be filed on or before 30-6-1981. It was actually filed on 10-2-1983 and was late by 19 completed months. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for late submission of return. The assessed did not file any reply to the penalty notice issued. A fresh show-cause notice was served on the assessed on 24-1-1986 fixing up the penalty matter for hearing on 12-2-1986. Still the assessed did not file any reply. The Income-tax Officer, thereforee, imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,290 on total income without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act. The assessed went in appeal before...
Jagat Singh Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: ILR1990Delhi547; [1990]185ITR242(Delhi)
P.K. Bahri, J.1. I proceed to decide these eight criminal revision petitions by this order as common questions of fact and law are involved in all these petitions. 2. Four complaints against Jagat Singh, petitioner, in four criminal revision petitions and four complaints against Jai Singh, petitioner, in the other four criminal revision petitions, have been brought by the Wealth-tax Officer for their prosecution for offences punishable under section 35B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, pertaining to their willfully not filing wealth-tax returns in due time for different assessment years. I will give the facts of one of such complaints as the facts are similar in other complaints. It has been mentioned in the complaint that the accused had failed to file his return of net wealth as required under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act (for short 'the Act') in respect of the particular assessment year and the Wealth-tax Officer had issued a notice under section 14(2) of the Act to the accused r...
Pushpa Grover Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT171; 1990RLR245
P.N. Nag, J.(1) Both these writ petitions are inter-connected and can be disposed of by a common judgment. (2) The brief facts (in Writ Petition No. 2361/88) which are relevant for the determination of the controversy may first be slated. The petitioner, Delhi Development Authority, has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 14.12.1987 of Shri S.P. Sabharwal, Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby he has set aside the order dated March 24, 1987 and remanded the case back to the Estate Officer with the direction that the Estate Officer should give one more opportunity to the appellant, Suit. Pushpa Grover, to adduce evidence and then after hearing both the parties he should decide the matter afresh. The Estate Officer vide order dated March 24, 1987 had passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner from the promises Rose Garden, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi which was given to her on license basis in 1978 for a period of 11 months, to begin with. The proceedings for ejectm...
Mahadev Francis Vs. Mary and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT121; II(1990)DMC291; 1990(19)DRJ306
Rabindra Nath Pyne, C.J.(1) This matrimonial reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is for confirmation of a decree passed by the Additional District Judge dated 28th February 1980 dissolving the marriage between the petitioaer, Mr. Mahadev Francis, and the respondent No. I, Mrs. Mary, on the ground of adultery.(2) The petitioner and respondent No. I were married on 6th February 1969 at N.S.M. Parish Church, Kottayam, Quilon District, Kerala, according to Christian rites. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 thereafter came to live in Central Vista Hostel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi, in the year 1973. It is alleged that the respondent No. I met one person, by name James, who shifted to Delhi from Keraia. It is further pleaded in the petition that the wjfe,i.e.respondent No.1. and the said James started living in adultery in another quarter at No. 90 Central Vista Hostel. It is further stated that in 1976, the wife came in contact with another body named Babu...
C.K. Suresh and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT371TriDel
The appellant is an agriculturist having a farm and used to purchase Ammonium Nitrate for use as fertilizer. He started a firm under the name and style of "Supreme Nitrate" in 1979 and in 1986 changed the name of the firm as "Archana Agross". The earlier firm was registered as SSI Unit with the Director of Industries and Commerce, Karnataka which was later on changed to "Archana Agross". Under the name of the said firm, the appellant started manufacturing Ammonium Nitrate and marketing it. According to the appellant, it is a fertilizer and was generally used as such. It was classifiable as a fertilizer under T.I. No. 14HH (CET) and completely exempted from C.E. duty as per Notification No. 40/83 and that is why was completely exempt from licencing control as per Notification No. 111/78, and so the appellant did not apply for licence for manufacture under provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). On 09.09.1987, the appellant sold ...
Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT415TriDel
1. The above application has been filed under Section 130 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 requiring the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer certain questions of law arising out of its Order No.388/89-C dated 14th August 1989, to the High Court.2. The alleged questions of law said to have arisen out of the order are as follows :- "(1) Whether on the strength of its SSI Registration the applicant is entitled as an 'Actual User Industrial' to import Cinematographic Colour Film (Un-exposed) Positive under OGL an item falling under Appendix 6, List 8, Part I of the Import Policy for AM 1988-91? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the Applicant was always employing less than 50 workers in its factory, it was incumbent upon the Applicant to obtain a licence under the IDR Act, 1951 to be eligible under OGL to import Cinematographic Colour Films (Uncxposed) positive as an "Actual User Industrial"? (3) Whether the expression 'Industrial undertaking' occ...