Delhi Court February 1967 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.
Asad Ullah Khan Vs. the Metropolitan Financiers Private Ltd., New Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT291
(1) These are five Civil Revisions Nos. 122-D, 131-D, 132-D, 133-D and 134-D all of 1966 against the common order dated 31st December, 1965, of Shri R. K. Synghal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, in five applications under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, which were registered as suit Nos. 249 to 253 of 1965. (2) The facts out of which these revisions arise are that the petitioner on 7th May, 1965, filed an application under Section 20 of the said Act in the Court of the Munsif, Nainital, and obtained a preliminary injunction against the respondents. Thereupon, respondents on 24th May, 1965, filed the above said application under Section 20 of the said Act in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, which were ultimately transferred for trial by Shri R. K. Synghal, Sub Judge 1st Class. The petitioner then filed applications under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of the proceedings in the Delhi Court in view of the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of M...
Suresh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT243
Dua and Tatachari, JJ. (1) Suresh appellant,an ?years old boy, has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, for the murder of Chander Mohan deceased and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has appealed to this Court through jail. As he was unrepresented by any counsel we requested - Shri R. L. Tandon, Advocate to assist us as amices curiae. Shri Tandon very kindly agreed to do , and it is a matter of satisfaction to find that the learned counsel has taken pains to inspect the entire relevant record. He has very ably and fairly placed before us various aspects of the case and apparently ntohing that could be said in favor of the accused has been left unsaid. (2) Turning to the prosecution case, on 7th April, 1965, at about 3.30 P.M., Suresh accused and Chander Mohan deceased were seen engaged with each toher in a scuffle. The accused was trying to stop the deceased from going to the house of one Smt. Halen because the deceased was a married man and illi...
Vaid Parma Nand Vs. Mandirraksha' Samti Shiv Kuti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT566
S.N. Andley, J.(1) In this Civil Revision the short point for determination is whether the statements of the counsel for the parties made at the time of the hearing of the matter by the Court constitute an application in writing for an order of reference within the meaning of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The short facts pertaining to this matter are that on 4th June, 1966, when the matter was pending in appeal before the Additional Senior-Sub Judge, Delhi, statements were made by the counsel for the parties which were recorded by the Court to refer the matter to arbitration. This statement- was signed nto only by the counsel for the parties, but also by vaid. Parma Nand the pititioner, and Amar Nath Garg, President of the respondent trust. Th' respondents , thereafter, made two applications on 6th June, 1966 arid 5th August, 1966, resiling from the agreement to refer to arbitration. (2) The Additional Senior Sub Judge came to conclusion that the statements of the counsel fo...
In the Matter of Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Delhi C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi1
ORDER(1) This is a reference under Section 57(10(b) of the Indian stamp Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The letter of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Delhi, referring this case to this Court reads as follows:- 'The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Respectfully Showeth 1 (a) That on 11-9-1964 Messrs. Hamdard Dawakhana (wakf), Delhi, executed an agreement in favor of the Institute of Medicines and Medical Research, Delhi. A copy of the agreement is submitted herewith as annexure A. (b) That on the same date Messrs. Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi executed antoher agreement in favor of Messrs. Hamdard National Foundations (India), Delhi. A copy of this agreement is submitted herewith as annexure B. 2 That on 15-9-1964 buth the agreements were presented for registration before the Sub Registrar (I), Delhi. They had buth been executed by the respondent on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2-00 each. 3 That the Sub-Registrar impounded, the two documents und...
NaraIn Singh Vs. Commr. of Income Tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi75
Kapur, J.1. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1951-52, the relevant previous year being the year ended on 31st March, 1951. In the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51, i.e. the two years preceding the year of assessment, the assessed took certain contracts regarding the sale of liquor in his individual name and sustained losses of Rs.48,619/- and Rs.4,892/- respectively. During the assessment year 1951-52 with which we are concerned, the assessed with ten toher persons, took antoher liquor contract and the business was carried on by the partnership under the name and style of Dulat Ram, Hans Raj and Company. This partnership was registered for the assessment year 1951-52 and, thereforee, the question has to be answered in the light of this fact. The assessed's share in the said registered firm was 11% pies in a rupee and during the year, his share of profits came to Rs. 20,414/-. The assessed claimed that he was entitled to carry forward and s...
S. NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income - Tax, Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR341(Delhi)
KAPUR J. - The dispute relates to the assessment year 1951-52, the relevant previous year being the year ended on 31st March, 1951. In the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51, i.e., the two years preceding the year of assessment, the assessed took certain contracts regarding the sale of liquor in his individual name and sustained losses of Rs. 48,619 and Rs. 4,892, respectively. During the assessment year 1951-52, with which we are concerned, the assessed with ten toher persons, took antoher liquor contract and the business was carried on by the partnership under the name and style of Dulat Ram, Hans Raj and Co. This partnership was registered for the assessment year 1951-52, and, thereforee, the question has to be answered in the light of this fact. The assesseds share in the said registered firm was 11 1/4 pies in a rupee and during that year, his share of profits came to Rs. 20,414. The assessed claimed that he was entitled to carry forward and set ...
Beopri Mal Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi73
(1) buth these appeals arise from the decision off Mahajan, J. In Civil Writ Petition, No.300-D of 1958 on the file of the Delhi Circuit Bench of the High Court of Punjab. That was a petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution by Beopri Ml, the appellant in L.P.A, No.33-D of 1965, seeking to get quashed the order of the Collector of Central Excise and land Customs. New Delhi made on July 25, 1958, in C.No.VIII (hrqs) DLH/10/26/58/56774 on his file where in the Collector nto only confiscated the sum of Rs.56,225-6-0 seized from two G.R.P. constables Jethusingh and Hari Singh on January 3, 1957 but also imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 on Beopri, Mal and Rs.1000 on each of the two remaining accused Jethusingh and Hari SinghThe learned single judge sustained the order of confiscation and quashed that order imposing penalty on Beopri Mal in L.P.A. No.33-D, of 1965 Beopri Mal challenges the correctness as well as the legality of the order the learned single judge sustaining the...
Matu Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi58
(1) In this Letters Patent Appeal, an application has been made under Section 5, Indian Limitation Act, and under Rule 4, Part A (a), Chapter I, Vol. V. Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court for condoning the delay in presenting this appeal within the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 4. (2) The facts relevant for considering this application are that the judgment and decree of Harbans Singh J., a Judge of the Punjab High Court, which is appeared against under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court, were passed on 16-1-1962. An application for copy of that judgment was made on 19-1-1962 and it was prepared on 9-3-1962. An application for leave to appeal under the Letters Patent was presented on 30-3-1962. This application came up for hearing before Harbans Singh J. On 25-2-1963 and leave was granted by the learned Judge. The appeal complete with court fee was, however, presented in this Court on 7-3-1963. It may be pointed out that the grounds of appeal had,...
Avtar Singh Anand Vs. E. Krishna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi185; (1969)IILLJ524Del
ORDER(1) Avtar Singh petitioner by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash the order dated 17th June 1959 of Labour Court Delhi, respondent No. 1, by which Ram Sarup Sharma respondent No. 2 was held entitled to recover Rs. 2,850 from the petitioner and Inder Singh respondent No. 3 as also their firm Inder Singh, Avtar Singh.(2) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and Inder Singh respondent No. 3 were partners in the business of coal and brickkiln under the name style of Inder Singh Avtarsingh with the offices at Delhi and Jharia. Ram Sarup Sharma respondent No. 2 was employed as a head clerk in that firm and worked as such for 16 years from 1st January 1941 to 15th December 1956. It appears that during the later part of 1956 the two partners of above-mentioned firm fell out and on 20th October 1956 they; applied for separate qutoas for themselves. In March 1957 the petitioner brought a suit for...
S. Zoiraster and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Raj ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR770(Delhi)
This is reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as &quto;the act&quto;). The question of law, referred for the opinion of this court, is :&quto;Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the profits and gains in respect of the sales made to the Government of India, were received by the assessed in the taxable territories ?&quto;This reference was made on December 10, 1952, and it was numbered as Civil Reference Case No. 3 of 1953, in the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla. The said reference came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of G. D. Khosla and Harnam Singh JJ. on the March 24, 1955. After hearing the counsel for the parties, their Lordships opined that it would be necessary to call for a supplementary statement under section 66(4) of the Act, as the Tribunal had nto given any finding as to whether the cheques, with which we are concerned in this case, were sent to the assessed by post ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »