Delhi Court January 1969 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not 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 Vs. Azad Bharat Finance Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR40(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The question in this case related to the justification and/or legality of the penalty sought to be levied by the revenue on the assessed in the assessment year 1952-53 (previous year ending March 31, 1952). The assessed enjoyed certain overdraft facilities from the United Commercial Bank and had furnished security for the same. Part of the said security was represented by three deposits of Rs. 10,000 each in the names of Lal Singh, Gobind Singh and Pishorilal. There was an additional security furnished, being a deposit of Rs. 10,000 standing in the name of one Faqir Chand but that was in the subsequent year and, thereforee, in the opinion of the Tribunal, had no relevance to the year in question. By the time the assessment proceedings were taken up, Pishorilal had died and was, thereforee, nto produced. The other two persons were, however, produced and deposed that they offered their deposits as security to enable the assessed to enjoy the overdraft facilities. The Income-t...
Ajudhia Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi264
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by a Company which is running a textile mill in Delhi against an order made by the Industrial Tribunal Delhi declining to grant approval to its action in dismissing three of its workmen namely, Shri Harcharan (respondent No. 2), Shri Kishan Dutt (respondent No. 3) and Shri Mohender Singh (respondent No. 4). All the three respondents were employed as tapemen-cum-oilers in the Ring Frame Department of the mill and their duty was to oil and tape the Ring Frame machines. (2) In the application filed before the Tribunal under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which will hereafter be referred to as the Act, it was alleged by the Company that on 17-3-1964 respondents I and 2 suddenly and without giving any notice of their intention to do so, started attending to 28 machines only instead of 43 machines which it was their duty to attend to and which they had been attending to prior to t...
Kanwar Bhan Vs. Shrimati Somawanti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi761
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This is a defendant's second appeal against a decree passed against him for possession in favor of the plaintiff-respondent by the Trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court.(2) The property in dispute is Shop No. Xii 3911, which is a part of a bigger property, which was a composite property within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Evacuee Interest (separation) Act, 1951, meaning that a part of the property had been declared to be evacuee property. Under Section 11 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951, the whole of the property or as the case may be, the evacuee interest in the property vested in the Custodian and the Custodian was entitled to manage the same, under Section 10 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. It is well knowal Chand and 15 others had applied in May, 1958 for the transfer of property to them claiming to be the sitting allottees, and the sale of the property was stayed on 10-6-1958. On 3-7-1958, the Custod...
State Vs. Moti Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi286
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) Motilal, proprietor of Rajasthani Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Subzimandi, Delhi, was tried and convicted by Shri M. M. Aggarwal, a Magistrate of the First Class, for contravention of the provisions of section 18(c), 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(iii), which is punishable under section 27(b) of the Drugs Act, 1940 (referred to hereafter for the sake of brevity as the Act). Under the first count he was sentenced to fine of Rs. 200.00. and under the later two counts to fine of Rs. 100.00 each. In default of the payment of fine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for certain periods. He filed an appeal to the Court of Session. The appeal was accepted, on September 7, 1967, by Shri K. S. Sidhu, Additional Sessions Judge, and the case was remanded with the following directions :- 'INcase, there was any oral complaint made to the learned Magistrate against the accused, he shall have to deal with that comaint in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 Cr. P.C. If there was n...
Harbans Singh and Anr. Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property 'P' Block and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi82
1. The property in question was mortgaged by Modh. Ismail, respondent No. 9 and at the instance of the mortgagee, who had filed a suit and in whose favor a Mortgage Decree had been passed it was put to sale through the Court Auctioner. In this sale, Kabool Singh (Original appellant) and Raghunath Das (original respondent No. 2) were declared the joint purchasers and the sale in their favor was confirmed by an order of the Court dated January 19, 1952. It is not disputed that Raghunath Das (original respondent no. 2) transferred all his rights, title and interest as an auction purchaser in favor of Kabool Singh aforesaid.2. Since the property was tenanted, mere symbolical possession was given to Kabool Singh on February 28, 1952 under Rule 96 of Order 21 Civil Procedure Code. After a few years of obtaining symbolical possession Kabool Singh on February 2, 1956 filed a suit which was dealt with by the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, against Lekh Ram resisted the suit on the ground. ...
Kabool Singh Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi719
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The property in question was mortgaged by Mohd. Ismail, respondent No. 9 and at the instance of the mortgagee, who had filed a suit and in whose favor a Mortgage Decree had been passed it was put to sale through the Court Auctioneer. In this sale, Kabool Singh (original appellant) and Raghujuath Das (original respondent no. 2) were declared the joint purchasers and the sale in their favor was confirmed by an order of the Court dated January 19, 1952. It is nto disputed that Raghunath Das (original respondent no. 2) transferred all his rights, title and interest as 'am auction purchaser in favor of Kabool Singh aforesaid.(2) Since the property was tenanted, mere symbolical possession was given to Kabool Singh on February 28, 1952 under Rule 96 of Order 21 Civil Procedure Code. After a few years of obtaining symbolical possession Kabool Singh on February 2, 1956 filed a suit which was dealt with by the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, against Lekh Ram, one of the ...
Manmohan Chawla Vs. Jaswant Singh Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1969
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT375
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) Second Appeal from the order of Shri C.G. Suri, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 31-8-66 affirming that of Shri Asa Singh Gill, Rent Controller, Delhi dated 21-10-1965. (2) This is a tenant's appeal against the order of eviction passed against him under proviso (a) to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act), for non-payment of arrears of rent. The order was initially passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi and was confirmed in the first appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal. Hence this second appeal.(3) The appellant, Shri Chawla, was the tenant of the suit premises, of which the respondent Shri Sethi, was the landlord. The agreed rate of rent was Rs. 160.00 per month. When the rent fell in arrears for the first time, Shri Sethi filed a petition (Exhibit A-20), for the eviction of Shri Chawla under proviso (a) to Section 14(1) of the Act, claiming that the rent was in arrears from 1-6-1961 to 31-1-1962. In his reply, (Exhibit ...
Virendra Saigal Vs. Sumatilal Jamnalal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi14
1. There were certain transactions as to shares between the parties to this petition. Concerning those disputes, the petitioner on May 3, 1963 filed a suit for accounts in the Court of Commercial Judge, Delhi, against the respondent (as defendant No. 1) and one K.K. Behl(as defendant No. 2). K.K. Behl was made a party defendant on the allegation that he was an agent of the respondent and that through him, the respondent was carrying on business in Delhi. Upon service of the summons of this suit, the respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit on the allegation that there was an agreement between the parties for reference of any disputes arising between them to arbitration. This application was dismissed on the ground that K.K. Behl aforesaid, who was a party to the suit as defendant NO. 2 was not a party to the alleged agreement for reference of disputes to arbitration.2. Upon the dismissal of this application, the respondent filed his w...
Raj NaraIn Agarwala Vs. the Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1969
Reported in: ILR1969Delhi936; [1970]75ITR1(Delhi)
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) The following two questions of law have been referred to this Court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :- '(1)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order for the assessment year 1955-56 finally concluded the position that the sum of Rs. 1,76,919.00 directed to be carried forward to the next year, represented loss and nto unabsorbed depreciation left over in the preceding year ? (2)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the written down value of the two factories in question for the purposes of computation of depreciation allowance was Rs. 6,20,000.00 ?'(2) The statement of case relates to the assessment year 1956-57 (previsous year ending 31-12-55). The assessed is a Hindu undivided family. A partnersip firm was constituted in the name of Prem Narain Raj Narain by a written instrument dated 1-1-1944 between two brothers Raj Narain and Prem Narain, each acting as a Karta of his Hindu undivid...
National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of We ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR465(Delhi)
Kapur, J. 1. Section 45(d) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, falls for consideration in this case. It is necessary to read the said provision and the Explanationn, which are as under :'The provisions of this Act shall nto apply to-- ..... (d) any company established with the object of carrying on an industrial undertaking in India in any case where the company is nto formed by the splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already inexistence or by the transfer to a new business of any building, machinery or plant used in a business which was being previously carried on : ...Explanation.--For the purposes of Clause (d), 'industrial undertaking' means an undertaking engaged in the manufacture, production or processing of goods or articles or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power ;....' The proviso to the section limits the period of exemption to five years and is nto relevant for the purpose of this enquiry.2. By Section 13 of the Fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »