Delhi Court December 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.
Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. Vs. the Registrar of Trade Marks, Gove ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi179
1. The appellants filed an application before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, for registration of the trade mark consisting essentially of the word 'Janta' in respect of electric torches. The application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal. Although no objections were filed by any one against the registration of the appellant's trade mark, the learned Assistant Registrar declined to register the appellant's trade mark mainly on the ground that it was not either distinctive or capable of distinguishing. The appellant seeks to challenge the said order of the learned Assistant Registrar.2. The learned Assistant Registrar was of the view that the word 'Janta' was phonetically akin to the word 'Janta' which was word of common use and which was neither distinctive nor capable of distinguishing the goods of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the word 'Janta' is quite distinct from the word 'Janta' and that in Hindi the word 'Janta' meant k...
Dass Studios Vs. R.K. Baweja, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi856
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The petitioner, M/s. Dass Studios, Connaught Place, New Delhi, which is a commercial establishment under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has filed the present petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the award dated 9-7-1969 of (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following three contentions before me, namely, (i) that the resignation letter was not a conditional one; (ii) that even if it was a conditional resignation the petitioner was not bound to fulfill the conditions before accepting the resignation; and (iii) that it was open to the petitioner to accept the resignaltion with immediate effect notwithstanding the date fixed by the 2nd respondent for the resignation to take effect. (3) The resignation letter is in Hindi and the original as well as its English translation had been filed along with the writ petition, the translation being Annex...
Bharat Kumar Dilwali Vs. Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mft. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi837
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The only question that has come up for consideration before the Division Bench is : whether the day on which the notice of the general meeting of the company is served and the day on which the meeting is held are to be excluded, when calculating 21 days, the period of notice, prescribed under section 171 of the Companies Act, 1956, herein referred to as 'the 1956 Act'. Section 171(1) of the 1956 Act reads as. follows :- '171(1).-A general meeting of the company may be called by giving not less than 21 days notice in writing.' (2) Mr. S. N. Chopra, the learned counsel for the defendant, contended that the phrase 'not less than 21 days notice' has to be construed with reference to section 53(2) of the 1956 Act, which prescribes the time when the service of the notice of a meeting shall be deemed to have been effected. The relevant portion of section 53(2) of the Act reads as follows: '53(2).-WHEREa document is sent by post,- (a) service thereof shall be deemed to be ef...
Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Balkishann Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi226; [1972]86ITR452(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, C.J. (1) This judgment will dispose of 13 Income-tax references, viz I.T.R.Nos. 1,4 to 10 and 16 to 20 of 1968 in which a common question of law has been raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). The applicant is the Commissioner of Income Tax while the respondent who will hereafter be referred to as the assessed is a partner in as many as 15-16 firms. Two of these firms carry on business at Delhi while the other firms carry on business outside Delhi on various places such as Amritsar, Kanpur, Kashgargh, Bombay, Nagpur and Calcutta and other places. The various references relate to different out of station firms. (2) Originally the Commissioner had applied to the Tribunal to refer lo the High Court two questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 20.3.1965 in I.T.R.No. 3253 of 1964-65. The questions read as follows:- (1)'Whether on the facts and in the circumstance...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. K.L. Bagga
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi767; [1973]92ITR578(Delhi)
ORDERdictated. Please issue penalty notice.' Apenalty notice under Section 28(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was prepared under date June 5, 1962 signed by the Income-tax Officer on June 20 1962 and served on the assessed on July 13, 1962. Mean while the Income-tax Act 1961 had come into force on April 1, 1962 and as the assessment was completed after the coming into force of the 1961-Act, the penalty proceedings had to be taken under the Income-tax Act of 1961 only. A fresh notice was thereupon issued under Section 274 read with S. 271 of the 1961-Act and proceedings were subsequently referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act. It was urged before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that the notices dated June 5, 1962 and April 9, 1964, were not validly issued and that there was no notice before the completion of assessment proceedings as required by Section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and thereforee the penalty proceedings were void. The c...
D.S. Bist and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi843; [1972]85ITR254(Delhi)
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'B') has referred the following two questions to this Court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' :- '1. Whether the sum of Rs. 5,556.00 is an admissible charge against the income of the previous year 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 24,252.00 is an item taxable in the previous year under the provisions of section 10(2) (vii) ?' (2) The assessed is a firm which carries on business as forest contractors and has several branches. The business which the assessed is carrying on was previously being carried on by the Hindu undivided family. The Hindu undivided family was disrupted on March 22, 1956 and on this very date the assessed firm came into existence. On such disruption, all the assets and liabilities of the Hindu undivided family had been taken over by the assessed firm as standing in the books of the Hindu undivided family ...
Taley Ram Vs. Jagminder Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1971
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT6
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) This is a second appeal at the instance of the landlord. The ground of ejectment was non-payment of rent and, it being a case of second default, the defendant was not entitled to gel the benefit of making a deposit of rent under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. A notice of demand dated 22nd April, 1962, was sent to the tenant claiming that the tenant had not paid rent from 1st November, 1961. It was claimed that as more than three months rent was due, the landlord was entitled to institute proceedings because of the provisions of section 14(2) of the Act. The Rent Control Tribunal held that there was a default of more than three months and the claim of the tenant to adjust three months rent on account of repairs could not be allowed. The Controller and the Tribunal both found that the notice of demand which was sent by registered post and maked 'refused' could not be deemed to have been served on the tenant. In this respect, the reason given by the Ren...
In the Matter of Contempt of Court Proceedings Vs. K.S. Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi113
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) Notice has been issued, suo motu, by this Court to the contemner K. S. Sethi, when it was brought to the notice of this Court by Shri R. L. Gupta, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi that the contemner had issued a copy of the notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure charging him as well as B. C. Misra, J. with dishonestly discharging their official duties, 'putting off all judicial clothes' and 'becoming quite naked' for 'rendering dishonestly undue favor to Shri H. K. Bansal, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi'. Copies of the said notice under section 80 Civil Procedure Code. were addressed to (1) the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, (2) the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration, Old Secretariat, Delhi, (3) Shri H. K. Bansal, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Trade. Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi, (4) B. C. Misra, J. and (5) Shri R. L. Gupta, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi. (2) The facts which l...
SaIn Dassberry Vs. Madan Lal Puri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1971
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT392
P.N. Khana, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated January 25, 1966 of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, who dismissing the landlord's appeal, affirmed the judgment of the' Controller whereby he had dismissed the eviction application of the landlord against the respondent-tenant (2) The appellant-landlord is the owner of a house situated in New Rajinder Nagar. Naw Delhi, and is in occupation of three living rooms, besides, kitchen, store, bath and latrine on its ground floor with two courtyards on both sides. The respondent-tenant has been in occupation of the first floor consisting of three rooms, two verandahs, kitchen, latrine and bath and the barsati of the said house, at Rs. 260.00 per month as rent, with effect from January 22, 1964. On November 26. 1964, the appellant-landlord filed a petition for the respondent's eviction under clause (b) and (c) of the proviso to section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the allegations that the required bona fide t...
Lola Ram Bhatia Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1971
Reported in: 1972RLR3
S. Rangarajan(1) The petitioner was enlisted as a Constable in Delhi in what is termed as Delhi Additional Police on 2-10-1932. He was absorbed in the regular Delhi Police Force on 1-4-1933 and confirmed as Constable (Selection Grade) on 1.5.1936. At present he has been holding a permanent post of Inspector (clerical) since 11.8.1971. About a year after his entering the Delhi Police Force he was posted as Reader to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Kotwali, Delhi on 6.9.1933. It appears from the certificate dated 17.2.1934 (copy of which is annexure 'A' to the petition) that he was working as an English Clerk of the D.S.P. City. The petitioner avers that he was invariably employed on duties entirely of clerical in nature. The duties on which he was so employed are mentioned in the History of Services pertaining to him (copy of which is annexure 'B' to the petition). Some time in the year 1950, the office of the Inspector General of Police, Delhi Administration (second responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »