Delhi Court January 1971 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.
Kanahiya Lal Balkishan Dass Vs. Labhu Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi219
H.R. Khanna, C.J.1. This judgment would dispose of S.A. O. 110-D/1962 and R.S.A. 105 of 1967. Both the appeals have been filed by M/.s. Kanhiya Lal Balkishan Dass. The respondent in S.A. O. 110-D of 1962 is Labhu Ram while that in R.S.A. 105 of 1967 is firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath through Jagan Nath partner. The two appeals are being decided by a common judgment as the submission of the learned counsel for the parties is that common question of the law and fact arise in the two cases and the decision is one is bound to impinge upon the decision in the other.2. The brief facts of the cases are that the appellants are the owner-landlords of the premises in dispute comprising shop No. 3659, Pahari Dhiraj, Saddar Bazar, Delhi. The premises were let out by the appellants to firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath through Jagan Nath on 1-1-1957 at a monthly rent of Rs. 290.00. The firm, Gokal Chand Jagan Nath, was subsequently dissolved on 13-4-1959 and the lessee rights of the premises in dispute fell t...
Kanhiya Lal Balkishan Dass Vs. Labhu Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi25
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) This judgment would dispose of S.A.O 110-D of 1962 and R.S.A. 105 of 1967. Both the appeals have been filed by M/s. Kanhiya Lal Balkishan Das. The respondent in S.A.O 110-D of 1962 is Labhu Ram while that in R.S.A. 105 of 1967 is firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath through Jagan Nath partner. The two appeals are being decided by a common judgment as the submission of the learned counsel for the parties is that common questions of law and fact arise in the two cases and the decision in one is bound to impinge upon the decision in the other. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the owner-landlords of the premises in dispute comprising shop No. 3659, Pahari Dhiraj, Saddar Bazar, Delhi. The premises were let out by the appellants to firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath through Jagan Nath on 1-1-1957 at a monthly rent of Rs. 29.00. The firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath was subsequently dissolved on 13-4-1959 and the lessee rights of the premises in dispute fell to the ...
Amar Kaur Vs. Umarao Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi270
1. This second appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi which affirmed on order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi rejecting the contention of the appellant that without recording the evidence on the admitted facts the application of the respondent-tenant under Section 20 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 should be dismissed as barred by time under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959, and the case was posted for recording of evidence to find out the date of the completion of the building. The appellant-landlady has contended that the building had been completed in February 1967 whereas the tenant had contended that the building had been completed in the first week of September, 1967.2. I have heard Mr. Janak Singh, Advocate on behalf of the appellant but unfortunately I have not had the assistance of anyone appearing on behalf of the respondent.3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that under the provisions...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Pramod JaIn Trust, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi1; [1971]81ITR604(Delhi)
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) The following question has been referred to this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 at the instance of the Revenue : 'WHETHER on the facts and in circumstances of the case a valid Trust had been created which would be entitled to exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-lax Act, 1922?'(2) The assessed is Pramod Jain Trust, Delhi and the matter relates to the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, the relevant accounting years for which ended on 31-3-1956, 31-3-1957, 31-3-1958,31-3-1959 and 31-3-1960. The assessed filed applications claiming refund of Rs.2,470.56, Rs.3,339.28, Rs.4,418.31, Rs.9,297.47 and Rs.3231.00 in respect of the above-mentioned years. According to the assessed, the dividend income in respect of which he claimed refund was exempt under the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as the assessed was a validly created trust. ...
Pannalal Girdharilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1971
Reported in: [1971]81ITR624(Delhi)
HARDAYAL HARDY J. - This income-tax reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), consists of four reference applications which were consolidated and disposed of by a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, having regard to the same question being involved in all the references.The four assessment years are 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 of which the relevant accounting years ended on June 28, 1957, June 19, 1958, July 17, 1959, and June 25, 1960, respectively. The applicant, Panna Lal Girdhari Lal, who will hereafter be referred to as the assessed, is a registered firm consisting of five partners, each having an equal share. The assessed carries on business of manufacture of copper wire and also of gota, tila and zari goods and is being assessed on a substantial income from year to year. The firm was formed during the previous year for 1942-43 assessment year, for which it was granted registration under section 26A ...
Ram Pershad and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi31
ORDER1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi fixing the rateable value of the premises bearing Municipal numbers 1928 to 1934 at Rs. 15.747/- per annum with effect from 1st April 1960 and ordering amendment of the assessment list accordingly, which order was confirmed by the Additional District Judge in appeal. The properties bearing the above said numbers along with three other numbers. 196, 1927 and 1935 were assessed compositely, the value per annum then being stated to be Rs. 13,620/-. The revised assessment was based on the amount of rent stated to be paid by the sub-tenable to the tenants of the petitioners. This fact is not in dispute. The amount of rent payable by the respective tenants and the paid by the sub-tenants to those tenants have been mentioned in Annexure R. 1 to the return filed on behalf of the Municipal corporation.It is further seen from the order of the learned Additional District Judge (copy of which is Annexure D to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pushpa Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi292; [1971]82ITR7(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The question arising for decision in this Income-tax reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a pure question of Hindu Law which has arisen in a case under the Income-tax Act. The question relates to the right of a female Hindu who' although she is a member of the Hindu undivided family, is none-the-less not a co-parcener. She wants to blend her property with the co-parcenary property of the joint family. Can she do so by a mere declaration made by her in that behalf? The Income tax Appellate Tribunal has taken the view that she can while the contention raised by the Revenue is that she cannot. That is the controversy in this case.(2) The question referred to us deals with what point and is worded :-WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that the income of Rs. 21,544.00 was not the individual income of the assessed Shrimati Pushpa Devi, but was the income of her Hindu undivided family?(3) The facts...
Anant Ram Manocha Vs. S. Prasad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi305
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 17-7-1961 passed by Shri S. Prasad, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, in the Ministry of Rehabilitation, New Delhi on a suo motu revision by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Act) by which an order dated 30-5-1959 passed by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner in respect of industrial concern No.XII/9205-7 (new) located in premises bearing No. 10325-39 (old) was passed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that these premises comprised of a double storeyed building situated in Nawab Gunj, Delhi and had been abandoned by one Choudhary Mohd. Din who had migrated t Pakistan sometime in the year 1947. In the premises was located a factory know as 'Locks, Tinplate and Tin Toys' on the ground floor while the first floor of the property was be...
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi Vs. K.N. Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi42; [1971]81ITR117(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This reference under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 relates to three separate persons, namely, Mr. K. N. Khanna, Mr. B. K. Khanna and Mrs. S. Khanna of New Delhi. In the case of Mr. K. N. Khanna, the assessment years are 1959-60 and 1960-61 while in the case of Mr. B. K. Khanna the assessment years are 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. In the case of Mrs. S. Khanna the assessment years' are 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The applications which raise a common question of law out of the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the various Wealth tax appeals filed before it, a common statement of case has, thereforee, been presented by the Tribunal and the following question of law has been referred to this Court :- 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the goodwill shown at Rs. 2,50,000.00 in the balance sheet of the company M/s. B. K. Khanna and Co. (P) Limited is an 'asset' as defined in section 2(e) of...
Harkartar Kaur and ors. Vs. the Lieutenant Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi195
ORDER1. The acquisition of the land of Petitioner No. 1 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was challenged in this writ petition on various grounds. In the light of the subsequent case-law, however, Shri M.S. Vohra, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his challenge to the acquisition to the following two grounds only, namely:-(1) The notification dated 24th October 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette. But under Section 4(1) of the Act, 'the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality'. This was not done by the Collector, and (2) The petitioner No. I alleged that she was away from Delhi when the notification under Section 4 was published. She, thereforee, filed objections to the said notification late, namely, on the 2nd of July 1963. A copy of the objection is at Annexure E to the writ petition. In a note at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »