Delhi Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, and Himachal Pr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR598(Delhi)
KAPUR J. - This order will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 2 of 1967 and 3 of 1967. The Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1967 relates to the accounting period ended 31st March, 1951, relevant to the assessment year 1951-52, while Reference No. 2 of 1967 to the accounting periods ended March 31, 1952, March 31, 1955, and March 31, 1956, relevant to the assessment years 1952-53, 1955-56 and 1956-57 respectively. The following three questions have been referred to us for our opinion in Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1967 :&quto;(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was the owner of the property known as Nedous Htoel in Pakistan in the relevant accounting year ?&quto;In the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,&quto;(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was the entitled to claim the loss of Rs. 1,70,104 in respect of the ownership of the said property ?&quto;(3) Whether, on the facts and in the ci...
Union of India, Delhi Vs. Roshan Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi165; 4(1968)DLT22
(1) The only question with which we are concerned at this stage is whether the appeal was presented in this Court within time and, if nto, should the time be extended and the delay condoned. (2) It is nto disputed that the appeal was presented in this Court on 12-1-1967. That was the 89th day from the date of the judgment and decree after excluding the period requisite for obtaining the necessary copies. The memorandum of appeal presented on that day bore the court-fee stamp of Rs. 5 only and an application under sections 149 and 151, Code of Civil Procedure, was made for extending the time by a fortnight for paying the full court-fee. The reason given in the petition was that sanction for withdrawing the amount to cover court-fee had nto till then been issued by the department concerned due to official routine in spite of best efforts by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The court-fee making up the requisite amount was filed in Court on 17-1-1967 and antoher formal application un...
Thomas and ors. Vs. Hotz Hotels Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT407a
1. This appeal, by the plaintiff, is directed against an order returning the plaint filed in the suit, for the recovery of damages, for presentation to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The suit was based on the following allegations.2. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, the employees of plaintiff No, 3, a limited company, incorporated and functioning in London, were sent to India, by plaintiff No. 3, for assisting and supervising the installation of certain machinery in the mills of Messrs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had stayed in the Cecil Hotel, Delhi, owned by defendant No. 1, Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had hired a taxi on the 18th July, 1957 owned by defendant No. 1 and driven by defendant No. 2. The taxi was insured against third party risks by defendant No. 3 The taxi was hired for carrying plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 to the premises of the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. from the Cecil Hotel. As the taxi had travelled a little beyond Bhargav...
Thomas Toraneey and ors. Vs. Htoz Htoels Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi3; 4(1968)DLT407
Om Parkash, J.(1) This appeal, by the plainliff. is directed against an order returning the plaint, filed in the suit, for the recovery of damages, for presentation to the Mtoor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The suit was based on the following allegations : - The plaintiffs No. 1 and 2. the employees of plaintiff No. 3 a limited Company, incorporated and functioning in London, were sent to India, by plaintiff No. 3, for assisting and supervising the installation of certain machinery in the mills of M/s Delhi Cltoh & General Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi. Plaintiffs Nos 1 & 2 had stayed in the Cecil Htoel, Delhi, owned by defendant No. 1 Plaintiffs Nos. I and 2 had hired a taxi on the 18th July, 1957 owned by defendant No. 1 and driven by defendant No. 2. The taxi was insured against Third party Risks by defendant, No. 3. The taxi was hired for carrying plaintiffs Nos 1 and 2 to the premises of the Delhi Cltoh & General Mills Co. Ltd. from the Cecil Htoel. As the taxi had travelled a little beyond...
R.S. Shri Ram Pershad and ors. Vs. Chhano Devi W/O Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Delhi75; ILR1968Delhi41
1. One Shri Bholumal executed a will dated 4-7-1916, In that will, inter alia, he provided for spending a sum of rupees thirty-two thousand and interest thereon in the construction of a Dharamashala, Subsequent to the said will, the said Bholumal himself completed the construction of the Dharmashala. thereforee, by a subsequent will dated 15-7-1921, he revoked his earlier will and provided for the management of the Dharamshala among other things. He appointed Ram Parshad, the first plaintiff in the suit and Ram Sarup, the deceased first defendant in the suit, which has given rise to the present Second Appeal, and two others as executors and managers for the purpose of carrying out the directions contained in the will and for managing the Dharmashala. The will stated that after the death of the testator the said managers should manage the Dharmashala in every way and carry out repairs. The will further provided that Ram Sarup, one of the managers, would be authorised to realise the rent...
Bawa Karam Chand Vs. Suresh Khurana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1967
Reported in: 4(1968)DLT45
M.M. Ismail, J. (1) This is an application to revise an order of a learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi deted 29th Septembet, 1966 purporting to have been made Order 23 Rule 1(2), Civil Procedure Code. The order is a very laconic one and it is as follows :- 'THElearned counsel for defendant prays, for heavy costs to be awarded to him. As per the statement of the plaintiff's counsel, this suit is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to bring fresh suit as it is likely to tail en foiinal defects on payment of Rs.30.00 as costs conditional.'The statement that is referred to in this order is equally laconic and vague and is as follows : - 'THEsuit is likely to fail on formal defects. It may be allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to bring fresh suit.'On the face of it, the order of the learned Sub-Judge is nto in conformity with therequirereentsiof . the stat,ut9ry proyisions. Under Order 23, Rule 1(2)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the court is satisfied that a suit must fail by ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›