Delhi Court September 1970 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, Delhi Vs. M.S. Shroff
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR687(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The following common question of law arising out of two orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C'), has been referred to this Court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, under Section 256(1) of the income-tax Act, 1961. 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case the expenditure of Rs. 6,979.00 out of a total expenditure of Rs. 10,079.00 incurred by the assessed on his foreign tour was an admissible deduction while computing the assessed's total income (2) The assessment year in question is 1962-63. The assessed is an Ophthalmic Surgeon in New Delhi. He derives income from his profession as well as from salary received by him from Dr. Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital. During the accounting year ending 31st March, 1962 the assessed visited several hospitals in different countries of Europe and in Egypt. He undertook the tour in order to keep himself abreast with the latest techniques in ophthalmology and spent a to...
Ram Dev Vs. Chaman Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT194
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) Ram Dev, a tenant has filed this second Appeal against the order of Shri Mohan Lal Jain, Rent Control Tribunal Delhi, dated September 19, 1968, in Rent Control Appeal No. 583 of 1967, modifying an order of Shri P. C. Saini, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated February 20, 1967, whereby he rejected the plea of standard rent raised by the tenant but directed the tenant to pay the agreed rent of Rs.70.00 per month. (2) The respondent herein, Chaman Lal, filed two applications, one after the other, for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute N'o. 4/C/10, situated in Rajindar Nagar New Delhi, which is under the tenancy of the appellant herein at Rs. 70/ - per month The premises n questions consists of one room with open courtyard shown in red in the plan filed by the respondent herein. In the application No. 923 of 1-64 which was filed earlier, tie respondent herein saught eviction on five. grounds provided in clauses (a), (t) (g) and (k) of the provis...
Vidya Wati and ors. Vs. Himachal Government Transport and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT39
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This appeal is against the order dated December 23, 1988, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mandi. Petition No. 5 of 1965 filed by the appellants under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was dismissed by the said order. The said petition had been filed by the appellants for an award of compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,000.00consequent upon the death of Hem Raj. who was a passenger in Bus No. HIM-4112 which was playing on October 19, 1965 between Mandi and Rewalsar and which met with an accident on the third mile from Mandi. Hem Raj died on October 21, 1965, in a hospital to which he was removed after the accident. The appellant is the widow of said Hem Raj. (2) The Tribunal did not assess the compensation which could be be awarded to the appellant because he came to the conclusion that nature was responsible for the accident which could not be said to be on account of any error on the part of the driver of th...
S.S. Pasupathy Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi883
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The petitioner, born on17-3-1913, was ordered to be retired on attainmentof the age of 55 years under F.R. 56(j) by the impugnedorder dated 16/02/1968 at Annexure 1' tothe writ petition. F.R.56(j) is as follows- 'NOTWITHSTANDINGanything contained in thisRule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is ofthe opinion that it is in the public interest to doso have the absolute right to retire any Government servant after he has attained the age offifty-five years by giving him notice of not lessthan three months in writing.'(2) The impugned order runs as follows:- 'UNDERthe provisions of F.R. 56(j), the President hereby gives notice to Shri S.S. Pasupathy,a permanent Stenographer of Central SecretariatStenographers' Service (Grade II) in the Ministryof Finance, Department of Economic Affairs thathe shall stand retired from service with effectfrom the date of expiry of three months' from thedate of service of this notice on him.'(3) The petitioner has challenged the o...
Bhagirthi Devi Vs. Premnath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi744
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The short question for decision in this second appeal against order is whether the doctrine of suspension of rent will apply against the appellant-landlady by reason of her taking possession of a part of the demised premises from one of several tenants alone without the consent of the other tenants. The Rent Control Tribunal differing from the Additional Rent Controller found against the appellant. (2) The brief facts are that in 1949 the appellant-landlady let out two flats in the first floor of the building bearing Municipal No. VI/4918, Sham Lal Road (7B Darya Ganj) Delhi jointly to five persons, including Lalta Parshad. The lessees were the father and four brothers. Each flat consisted of three room with Barsati, latrine and roof thereon. The total monthly rent was Rs. 150.00. The landlady filed an eviction petition against all the five tenants staling that she required the same for her bonafide requirement; this was in addition to her relying on other grounds...
Gukdial Singh Vs. Brij Kishore and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT592
Rajindar Sacher, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) against the Judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated December 18, 1962, by which he set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated August 25, 1962, and ordered the eviction of the appellant tenant from the premises in dispute. (2) The ficts .re that the appellant tenant Gurdial Singh is a tenant under the respondents of Quarter No 10 Block No. 205, C. Plot No. 69-A, bazar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi. Ob a monthly rent of Rs. 23.91. On December 31, 1959, an application was brought by the respondent-landlord against the appellant under Section 14 of the Act on allegations that he had sub-let assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in dispute to respondent No.4, Dr.Jagde v Singh Mummick, without his written consent and also on the ground that neither the tenant nor any member of his family had been residing in the premises in ...
Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR101(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J.1. This is a consolidated reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relating to three assessment years 1953-54, 1955-56 and 1956-57 corresponding to previous years ending December 31, 1952, December 31, 1954 and December 31, 1955, respectively. The questions of law, though worded slightly differently in respect of each year of assessment, involve the same common point, namely, the construction of Section 15C of the Income-tax Act, hereafter called 'the Act'. The questions read as under :'Assessment year 1953-54 : (1) Whether the unutilised portion of the tax exemption computed under Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be carried forward to be set of against the future profits Assessment year 1955-56: (2) Whether the unutilised portion of the exemption granted under Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be carried forward to be set off against the future profits Assessment year 1956-57 : (3) Whether the assessed...
New India Colour Co., Delhi Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, New De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi138; [1971]80ITR206(Delhi)
Jagit Singh, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'B') under provisions of Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the income-tax Act').'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest credited to the amounts of the four donees was a permissible deduction?2. Messrs. New India Colour Co., Delhi a partnership firm registered under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, is the assessed in the case. The assessment years under reference are 1957-58 and 1958-59; the relevant previous years being the years ending on the 31st January 1957 and the 31st January 1958 respectively.3. The assessed-firm had two partners, Kartar Singh and one of his sons named Kahan Chand. The share of Kartar Singh was twelve annas in a rupee while that of Kahan Chand was four annas in a rupees.4. By a letter dated the 31st January 1956 Kartar Singh requested the assessed firm to debt his acc...
Management of Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratory Lal Kuan, Delhi Vs. Raunaq Hus ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1970
Reported in: [1971(22)FLR197]; ILR1971Delhi308; 1971LabIC405; (1971)ILLJ456Del
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the LettersPatent by the Management of Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, Delhi, isdirected against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby thewrit petition filed by the appellant against Raunaq Hussain respondent No. 1, Hamdard Dawakhana Employees Union respondent No. 2 andthe Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), for quashing the awardof the Tribunal was dismissed.(2) Raunaq Hussain respondent joined the service of Hamdard (Waqf)Laboratories, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Dawakhana) at Delhiin 1953. By an order of the Divisional Manager Administration of theDawakhana dated June 30, 1966 Raunaq Hussain was transferred witheffect from 5/07/1966 to Hamdard Dawakhana, Hyderabad, and 'isdirected to join the new post by 11/07/1966. Raunaq Hussain maderepresentation against the proposed transfer but the representation wasrejected. Raunaq Hussain who ...
Saraswati Vs. Tulsi Ram Seth and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi110
Sachar, J.1. The question that requires determination in this petition is whether a senior advocate, designated under the Advocates Act, 1961, and Supreme Court Rules, is debarred form examining or cross-examining the witnesses as this would amount to `acting' in a court on his part which admittedly a senior advocate is prohibited from doing.2. A suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery or Rs.14,722.61 and a mandatory injunction for possession under Section 66 of the Specific Relief Act. During the trial of the suit, Mr. Hans Raj Sawhey, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and the High Court appearing for the defendant, wanted to examine certain witnesses. This was objected to by Bawa Shivcharan Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff on the ground that Mr. Sawhney being a senior advocate could not `act'. Accordingly, it was contended that an examination and cross-examination of witnesses come under the definition of the term `act' Mr. Sawhney could not proceed wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›