Delhi Court March 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.
American Furnishing House New Delhi Vs. Udal Ram Bhurji S/O Chunna Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi163
1. The revision petition has had a chequered career and was filed against the dismissal of a Small Cause Court Case NO. 614 of 1958, on the file of the Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Delhi. The plaintiffs in the suit were (1) Messrs American Furnishing House and (2) Shri Hari Das, said to be a former partner of the American Furnishing House. The suit was instituted for the recovery; of a sum of Rs. 922/8/3. On the allegation that the amount was due to the plaintiff-firm, which was dissolved on 1/6/1965. The claim was based upon, among tohers, an agreement executed by; the defendant on 1-4-1955 for a sum of Rs. 791/8/3. One of the defense raised by the defendant was that on the date of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff No. 1 firm having been dissolved, the suit as such could nto be filed by that dissolved firm. In addition to the fact that the agreement was executed by the defendant on 1-4-1955 and the firm was dissolved on 1-6-1955 and the suit was instituted on 28-3-1958...
Jagannath Kashinath Kavalekar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi121; 1967CriLJ1497
ORDER(1) On 6th May, 1954, Ramlal Amritalal Parekh and Amritalal Lalbhai Parekh were intercepted by the Customs Officers near the Marine Lines Station, Bombay and their search resulted in recovery of 90 bars of gold weighing 10 tolas each. On further enquiry the Customs Officers found that one Pal Dhungal was the agent in Bombay of the petitioner, a resident of Goa, for receiving and disposing of gold sent to him. As result of the enquiries proceedings were initiated against various persons, including the petitioner and show cause ntoices issued to them. By order dated 9th April, 1957, the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay directed confiscation of 1400 tolas of gold, which had been disowned by all the persons concerned under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. A personal penalty of Rs.1,89,000/- was also imposed on the petitioner under the aforesaid provision. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, preferred an appeal to the Centra...
Shanti Devi Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi177; 1968CriLJ1156
(1) On 29-4-1965, at about 1-30 p.m., when Sri Ram Parkash (P. W. 1 ) along with his friend Sri kanhaiya Lal (P. W. 3 ) were passing though the lane on the backside of house NO. 489 /6, situate in prem Gali, heard the shrieks of a child form inside the house. They peeped though the window of that house which abutted the lane and which was open and they saw that the appellant shanti devi was holding a razor in her right hand and cutting the neck of a child (her own child), aged about one year and that the child was crying and blood was oozing out of his neck. Btoh of them hurriedly entered the house through its main gate on the toher side of the wall, while raising an alarm with a view to save the child's life. Meanwhile, Shiv Shankar (P.W. 4), a boy residing in the neighborhood, also came to the spto. Seeing all the three people, Smt. Shanti Devi, the appellant herein, left the child, sat down on a cto and threw the razor under the cto. Leaving Shri Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.) and Shri Shiv Sh...
Banarsi Dass and anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-iii District, New Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi43
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) The facts of this case have been set out in great detail by the learned Single Judge and the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal admit of statement in a very moderate compass. We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1946-47, the relevant accounting period being 16-10-1944 to 4-11-1945. Firm Jankidass Banarsidass was started in 1940 with btoh the appellants as the partners, Appellant Banarsidass had -/11/- share while his brtoher Phool Chand had -/4/- share in profits of the firm. The remaining -/1/- was being set apart for charity. The firm was registered under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 for the relevant assessment year.The assessment of the firm was completed for the said year on 5th August, 1946 and income assessed at Rs. 6,644. The income of the partners was then assessed separately in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (5) of Section 23 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Banarsidass's...
A.S. Selhi S/O S. Sant Vs. Union of India Through Secy., Ministry of W ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi26; ILR1968Delhi393; 1968LabIC24
S.K. Kapur, J.1. The Plaintiff-appellant joined Government service in 1941 and was promtoed as Assistant Inspecting Officer (Technical) in 1942. He was posted in the India Store Department at London in 1944. In October 1955, the plaintiff visited Copenhagen in connection with the inspection of stores purchased from M/s. Bruel and Kjaer and issued a certificate in pursuance of inspection on 24th October, 1955. The defendant, Union of India on a report framed four charges against the plaintiff;(i) demanding illegal gratification from the firm M/s. Bruel and Kjaer; (ii) using official influence for personal advancement; (iii) violation of Rule 3 of the C. C. S. (conduct) Rules, 1955 (iv) violation of Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (conduct) Rules, 1955. The two principal allegations against the plaintiff were that: (i) for signing certain documents in connection with the inspection of store, he demanded and obtained from M/s. Bruel and Kjaer (hereinafter to be referred as the firm) a sum of D. Kr...
The United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Firm Ganesh Das R.B. Kidar Nath an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT220
I.D. Dua and M.M Ismail, JJ.(1) This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the Order of a Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dated 30th July, 1957 rejecting the plaint in suit No. 92/91 of 1955/57 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) The Plaintiff filed the present suit for the recovery of bs. 34,000.00 with future interest at 6 % per annum, compound interest with halt yearly rests, from the date of suit till realisation. To this suit, one firm M/s. Ganesh Das R. B. Kidar Nath, which carried business as Mil! owners, Contracttos etc. at Lahore, Gujrat etc. in West Punjab and now carries on business at Ambala, Bombay, Delhi and toher places in India (service to be etjected through defendants 2 to , proprietors/partners thereof) was the first defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that commencing from 10th February 1945, the defendant No. 1 firm belonging to the joint Hindu family comprising of defendants Nos. 2-5 and their eldest brtoher Kanwar Raj Nath had an overdraft...
B.D. Gupta Vs. the Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT623
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) This first appeal was on an earlier occasion adjourned as the parties were trying to arrive at asettlement. After we had heard this appeal the learned counsel for the parties wanted us to reserve judgment for a few days so that the parties may negtoiate for a compromise. We have now been informed that they have nto been able to reach any agreement. (2) The Chief Commissioner of Delhi by order dated 13th September, 1954, decided to re-enter the premises on account of the alleged violation of clause 2(5) of the lease-deed. This order results in the plaintiff losing the entire valuable property. The right of re-entry has been exercised on account of certain unauthorised constructions in the premises. On 25th May, 192/, a lease agreement was entered into between one Padam Chand and the Secretary of State for India. The plaintiff-appellant, purchased Padam Chand's rights on 31st March, 1930, and alease- dead was executed between the Secretary of State for India and B. D. G...
Sant Bhushan Lal Vs. Brij Bhushan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi137; 3(1967)DLT488
Khanna and Hadry, JJ.(1) 'THIS regular first appeal by Sant Bhusan Lal plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit. (2) Sant Bhusan Lal plaintiff is the son of Munshi Lal defendant No. 3 from the latter's second wife, Puran Devi. BriJ Bhushan Lal and Onkar Bhushan Lal are the sons of Munshi Lal from his first wife, who died before his man iage with Puran Devi. On 23rd January, 1945 Munshi Lal, defendant No. 3, on his own behalf and as next friend of Sant Bhushan Lal plaintiff, who was then minor, brought a suit for partition and separation of the then plaintiff's 2/5th share in the house in dispute bearing Municipal No. 500, situated in Kundewalan Street, AJmeri Gate, Delhi. Brij Bhushan Lal and Onkar Bhushan Lal, sons of Munshi Lal, were defendants I and 2 in the aforesaid suit. Puran Devi, wife of Munshi Lal, was the third defendant in the suit. A preliminary decree for pa...
Shiv Shanker Lal Gupta Khandelwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomb ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR393(Delhi)
K. S. HEGDE C.J. - As a preliminary objection, to the effect that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, has been taken on behalf of the respondents and as we agree with the same, it is sufficient if we set out the facts material for the purpose of deciding that question. But before doing so, we shall qutoe the reliefs prayed for in this petition. They read thus :&quto;The petitioner, thereforee, most respectfully prays :That this hon'ble Court be pleased :(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any toher appropriate writ, direction, or order under article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the said search and seizure and ordering and directing the respondents to forthwith return to the petitioner the remaining files, documents and papers seized and carried away by them during the said search and seizure and the sum of Rs. 1,17,000 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum from the 9th July, 1966, till payment;(b) to issue ...
Meattles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR79(Delhi)
K. S. HEGDE C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question of law referred is :&quto;Whether the aforesaid sum of Rs. 33,150 paid by way of premium under the aforesaid policy is deductible under the provisions of section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?&quto;The material facts of the case are these : Messrs. Meattles Limited, Delhi, is a private limited company. Shri. B. D. Meattle, the governing director of the company, owns practically all the shares. In reality, it is a one-man concern, as held by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The board of directors of the company, by means of a resolution dated October 29, 1954, resolved as under :&quto;The Board think it expedient and in the best interest of the company that Shri. B. D. Meattle, the governing director of the company, be insured as provided in article 44 of the memorandum of association of the company, buth for life and accid...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »