Delhi Court February 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.
Official Liquidator of Globe Associate (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. H ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas197(Delhi); ILR1971Delhi149
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This case has come up beore us on a reference made by. one of us on an applicaton filed by the Official Liquidator on 22-10-1969 under Section 457(1)(c) of the Companies Act. 1956 for permission to sell tenancy rights of certain premises viz., basement portion of a building at 4/9 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi which was being held by a company of which the Official Liquidator was the Liquidator appointed by this Court on 7-3-1969 in Company petition No. 78 of 1968, on a monthly rental of Rs. 300.00 (2) It is not disputed that the tenancy held by the company viz. Globe Associates Private Limited (now in liquidation) and which will hereafter be referred to as the 'tenant company', was a monthly tenancy and had not been determined by the land-lord, Shri H. P. Sharma, who will hereafter be referred to as the respondent. The tenancy was not for a fixed period and was, thereforee, subject to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958.' The said Act will hereaft...
Praphul Ranjan Brar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi375
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) The petitioner, Praphul Ranjan Singh Brar, who is serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Delhi and Himachal Pradesh Police Service (hereinafter referred to as D. & H.P. Police Service) Class Ii, and at present in Delhi Armed Police (hereinafter referred to as D.A.P.), has filed this writ petition praying that- (1)the order of appointment of Shri P. J. S. Kumar (respondent No. 4) in the Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as Indian Police Service .) may be quashed; and (2) the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (respondent No. 2) may be directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner in the Indian Police Service (I.P.S.).The respondents in the writ petition are: (1) Union Public Service Commission; (2) Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; (3) P. V. Rajagopal; and (4) Paramjit Singh Kumar. (2) The Union Public Service Commission are responsible under Article 320(1) of the Constitution ...
Debi Singh Vs. Bhim Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi316
1. Debi Singh, the appellant in the present case instituted a suit against the respondents for possession of the land in suite which measures 9 Bighas 2 bids was and is situated in village Ladpur, Delhi. The defendants in the suit, who are respondents in the appeal, were Bhim Singh and Mehan Singh, who were in possession of the land and Khem Ram, who is the father of the appellant. The allegation in the plaint was that the plaintiff and his father were joint owners of the land in dispute, and the said Bhim Singh Mehar Singh had entered into possession of the land some three years before the institution of the suit. Bhim Singh and Mehar Singh, respondents, as defendants Nos, 1 and 2 disputed the plaintiff's title. They alleged that Khem Ram alone was in possession of the land and he had mortgaged the same to them with possession and they were in possession of the land in their capacity as mortgagees. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in...
Hafiz Rahim-ud-dIn and ors. Vs. Tirlok Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi319; 1971RLR39
1. Tirlok Singh, respondent held leasehold rights in a plot of land under the Delhi Improvement Trust. On March 20, 1947 he conveyed his said rights to the appellants, Hafiz Rahim Udin and others, by a registered deed of sale. The appellants were also given possession of the land. In or about September, 1947 when there were communal riots and disturbances, at the time of the partition of the country, the appellants appear to have lost control over the said land, and could not manage and retain physical possession thereof. The respondent at that time took back the possession of the said plot. On January 29, 1958, the appellants filed a suit for possession against the respondent in respect of the suit land. This suit was decreed on March 30, 1959. Respondent's appeal was dismissed on October 17,1961. 2. On November 1, 1962, the appellants took out execution of their decree against the respondent who filed his objection thereto. According to him the decree had become inexecutable, inter a...
R.P. Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi175
S.N. Andley, J. (1) In this petition, the petitioner had prayed for a certificate of fitness under clause (1) of Article 132 and sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution of India. However, at the time of hearing, Mr. S. T. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has confined the prayer only to sub-clauses (a) :and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution. (2) The petitioner had applied for the post of Director of the Central Institute of Orthopedics to the Union Public Service Commission to whom , requisition had been sent by the Government of India. Respond fit No. 3 was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for the said post and was appointed thereto. The petitioner filed a writ petition for quashing the proceedings resulting in the selection offers pandect No. 3; the recommendation of the Union Public Service Com mission in that behalf and for a direction against the Union of India not to make the appointment of responden...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Vs. Roshanara Club Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi164
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The following two questions of law have been submitted to this Court by the Lieutenant Governor Delhi for its opinion:- (A) Whether the Roshanara Club, which sells goods to its members, is not a dealer as defined under clause (c) of Section 2 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (b) Whether such a Club is liable to pay tax on its sales, under the aforesaid Act, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act ?'(2) This reference has been made under Section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, hereafter to be described as the Act. The statement of case sets out the contentions urged on behalf of the respondent before the Assessing Authority and the orders made by the said Authority and the two revising authorities under the Act in which they were rejected. It also mentions the order made by the Additional District Judge, Delhi under sub-Sect...
Smt. Javitri Devi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1340
ORDERM.R.A. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner was prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, New Delhi, for an offence Under Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the allegation that on 15-12-1968 at about 12 noon the petitioner was found in possession of a revolver without a license. The police filed the challan against the petitioner on 26-12-1968 and the petitioner appeared in the trial Court on 18-1-1969. Copies of the documents referred to Under Section 173, Cr.PC were supplied to her. These copies did not include the copy of any order sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner as required Under Section 39 of the Act. On 21-2-1969, a charge was framed against the petitioner Under Section 25 of the Act to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty. The case was then fixed for taking the prosecution evidence. The case came up for hearing on a number of dates but no evidence was actually recorded. On 6-12-1969, the learned Counsel for the petit...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi Vs. Sheela Bharat Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi191; [1971]81ITR111(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'B ) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred the following two questions to this Court under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 95,851.00 representing the additional amount of tax payable by M/s. Bharat Ram Charat Ram & Co. Pvt. Ltd., which was not provided for in the P & L account and balance-sheet of the said company but which was actually levied on the company after the valuation date could be said to be a part of the total debt owed within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 while arriving at the market price of the shares of the said company within the meaning of Section 7(1) of the Act 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 6,859.06 which was the income-tax and valuation date, was debt owed within the meaning of Sectio...
British India General Insurance Co., New Delhi Vs. United India Genera ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi266
ORDER1. A policy of insurance was taken by Chela Ram, respondent No. 2 with the British India General Insurance Company, petitioner, in the present revision petition. It is a common case that this policy was issued on 16-5-1960 in the name of Chela Ram and was valid for one year up to 31-5-1961 and was renewed for a further period of one year from 1-6-1961 to 31-5-1962. Respondent No. 1 M/s. United India General Finance (P) Ltd., is the financier of the truck which was insured with the insurance company. Respondent No. 2 of the Arbitration Act pleading that the insurance company was refusing to pay on account of the accident and, thereforee, sought to involve Clause 10 of the policy for having the matter referred to the arbitrator.The petitioner controverter the allegations. It was maintained by the petitioner that Chela Ram had no insurable interest at the time of the accident nor at the date of the entering into agreement of insurance and that the contract of insurance was entered in...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, New Delhi Vs. Bhanna Mal and Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi371; [1971]82ITR138(Delhi)
V.D. Misra, J.(1) M/S Bhanna Mal & Company Private Ltd., Delhi, the assessed, during the assessment year 1956-57 (for which the accounting year ended on October 25, 1955), spent a sum of Rs. 130.00 in its Patna branch and Rs. 65.00 in its Alwar branch over the salary of a pujari. who used to invoke the blessings of Gods and Goddesses of prosperity for the benefit of assessec. The Incometax Officer disallowed both these items as not being a deductable expense without assigning any reason. The assessed appealed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the dis-allowance observing that the assessed had failed to prove as to how these expenses were necessary for the purpose of running the business. (2) On Second appeal, the income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that although such expenses might not be tangibly connected with the carrying on of the business, it had certainly an intangible bearing on it since to a God fearing man such expenses were expense which create a sense of security...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »