Delhi Court November 1991 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.
Sudarshana Rani Vs. Kamla Bhutani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT678
S.C. Jain, J. (1) Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Smt. Sudarhan Rani Kapoor, petitioner, herein, filed an eviction petition against Smt. Kamla Bhutani, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B, of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended, on the ground that the premises are required bonafide by the landlady for her occupation as residence for herself and other members of her family. (2) Summons under Schedule Iii of the Delhi Rent Control Act were also issued in accordance with Section 25B(3)(a) of the Act, but the same were not personally served on the respondent as she was away to Calcutta. Her attorney who had received the summons, filed an application under Section 25B(4) seeking leave to defend the eviction petition within the statutory period of fifteen days. That application was, however, dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller vide order dated 18,3.1991 observing that the same should have been filed by the respondent herself. Admitting t...
K.K. SarIn Vs. Pigett Chapman and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT671
S.C. Jain, J.(1) Mr. K.K. Sarin petitioner herein filed an eviction petition against M/s. Pigett Chapman & Co., a partnership concern of which Sarvi Singh and Smt. Jind Singh respondents 2 and 3 were the partners. During the pendency of the revision petition before this Court, one of the partners, Sarvi Singh died which necessitated the petitioner to file this application under Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 30 Rule 4 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code with the prayer that the name of Smt. Jind Singh being the wife of the deceased be substituted in place of Sarvi Singh The application was opposed by the respondent and a written reply was filed alleging that Sarvi Singh was tenant in his own right and has left behind a son Arjun Singh and daughter Mrs. Meera Randhwa and Miss Pia Singh besides his wife. Mrs. Jind Singh who is tenant in her own right. (2) During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards the provisions of Section 2(1)(iii) of the De...
Jane Alam Vs. Ahmed Mian and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT114
S.C. Jain, J. (1) A landlord will be entitled to eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act if he is able to prove that (a) the premises in question were let out for residential purpose, (b) that he is the landlord/owner of the premises, (e) that the premises are required bonafide for himself for occupation as residence for himself and for any of his family members dependant upon him and for whose benefit the premises are held and (d) that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation (2) In this case, the main thrust of the argument of the Counsel for the tenant, who is petitioner-herein, is that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose and no eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act could have been passed. He drew my attention towards the oral as well as documentary evidence on record to prove his stand that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes. Ex. RW3/1...
Rainbow Ink and Varnish Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT593TriDel
1. The appellants herein manufacture "printing ink media". They filed classification lists during the period 1-7-1984 to 14-4-1986 classifying the product under Tariff Item 68 (upto 28-2-1986) and under Heading 3215.00 (after 1-3-1986). All the classification lists were approved by the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector except classification list No. 2/32/86 dated 15-4-1986 which was approved provisionally on 23-9-1986. Permission to work under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules was also granted on 7-4-1984 and on the basis of the same the appellants cleared the printing ink media to their factory at Vakola, Bombay for further processing. Samples were drawn of the following items viz.The test reports revealed that the said products are not classifiable under Heading 3215.00 but were in fact varnishes, phenolic resins and bituminous mixers falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item 14II(i), 15A(1) and 14II(ii) and not under Tariff Item 68 as claimed by the assessee. The Department issue...
Aero Leather (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1991
Reported in: ILR1992Delhi731; [1992]194ITR7(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of Section 28(iiib) and Section 2(24)(vb) of the Income-tax Act with retrospective effect by the Finance Act of 1990. (2) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is an exporter and pursuant to the policy of the Government of India it received Cash Compensatory Support (hereinafter referred to as CCS). The present writ petition pertains to the assessment year 1987-88. The petitioner had filed a return declaring 'Nil' income and it claimed that Ccs was not taxable. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, however, on 13th October, 1989 held that this receipt was taxable and assessed the petitioner at a net income of Rs. 1,53,33,927. Further appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was also unsuccessful and the same was dismissed on 16th March, 1990. (3) On 23rd May, 1990, the Assessing Officer demanded tax and interest from the petitioner. The total amount demanded was Rs. 43,53,369, inclusive of ...
Union of India and anr. Vs. K.K. Taneja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1991
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT227
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The present Letters Patent Appeal by the Union of India is directed against the Judgment dated 2.11.87 of the Learned Single Judge,quashing the order of dismissal from service of Major K..K. Taneja, the respondent herein, by the General Court Martial and confirmed by the Competent authority under the Army Act.(2) Along with this appeal, the appellants filed an application (CM158/81) u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condensation of delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. The appellants also moved another (CM 157/88) underOrder 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for permission to place on record the relevant Gazette notification/warrant by way of additionalevidence.(3) Before dealing with this appeal and the applications, it is relevant to keep in mind a few salient features of the respondents, case as disclosed in his petition (CWP 1253/78). The respondent herein was appointed as a regular commissioned officer in the Indian Army in December, 1965. Th...
Suresh Chand JaIn Vs. Lt. Governor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1991
Reported in: 1992RLR58
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the second respondent. Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Returning Officer to conduct election of the Board of Directors of Jai Lakshmi Coop. Bank Ltd. as per law and a further direction to him to accept the nomination papers of petitioners 1 and 2 for the posts of Chairman and Director of the Bank. Yet another direction sought is that nomination papers filed by respondents 3 to 5 for the posts of Directors be rejected. (2) The bank is a Society registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1971 (the 'Act') and for the purpose of election and nomination of its Board of Directors is governed by S. 31 of the Act. This Board is a Committee as defined in S. 2(b) of the Act. The Committee has been defined in S. 2(b) of the Act meaning the governing body of a coop. society, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is e...
Dalvir Singh Gahlot Vs. Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT631; 1992RLR237
R.L. Gnpta, J.(1) The facts in this petition are shocking. Petitioner happens to be an Inspector in the Textile Committee under Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India. He is being prosecuted in two complaints by the CBI. First complaint is under Section 120B read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 while the second complaint is under Section 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. 1947. (2) In both the complaints so far the petitioner is concerned the allegations are identical. These are that he issued two inspection certificates in 1980. The date of one is 30.1.80 while that of the other certificate is not clear from the complaint. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that he issued these false certificates in which he certified restricted dresses as non-restricted dresses. He is alleged to have so done in conspiracy with the Exporters i.e. M/...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT597TriDel
1. The interpretation of the 5 year period of eligibility for concessional rate of clearance of 'paper' and 'paper board' falling under TI 17(1) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff in terms of Notification No. 108/81 as amended arises for consideration in this appeal. According to the Department, the 5 year period is to be reckoned from 24-4-1981 i.e. the date of issue of Notification 108/81 while the respondents' contention is that the period is to be calculated from 2-4-1984, the date of issue of Notification 83/84 amending the earlier notification so as to bring "paper and paper-board" within its ambit.2. The facts necessary for appreciation of the dispute are that the respondents cleared kraft paper at concessional rate from the date of 1st clearance i.e. from 19-8-1979 in terms of Notification 108/81 as amended by Notification 83/84 and also availed the extended period as per amendment to the same notification by Notification 214/84 dated 9-11-1984; calculating...
Smt. Shanti Devi Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD234(Delhi)
1. These two appeals are filed by the same appellant and are inter-connected. Hence they are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. These appeals are directed against the penalties levied against the appellant for alleged concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and for filing an untrue estimate of advance tax under Section 273(a) of the Act.3. First I shall consider the appeal against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in ITA No. 4865(Del)/1990. This penalty was levied by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax for alleged concealment of income by the assessee to the extent ofRs. 63,000 from her return of income for the assessment year 1974-75. According to the Assistant Commissioner, the assessee had concealed income to the extent of Rs. 32,225 on sales of Rs. 97,652 in the business carried on by her as sole proprietrix under the name and style of M/s. Neeta Prakashan and that, further, she had concealed a net...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »