Delhi Court March 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.
The Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Munshi Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi517; [1972]85ITR129(Delhi)
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) The following question has been referred to this Court under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 :- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the act of throwing self acquired property by the asses- sees into common hotchpotch of the Hindu undivided family with the intention of abandoning their rights in that property amounted to a gift within the meaning of the term 'gifts' as defined in the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'(2) The case relates to two assesseds Shrimati Sharbati Devi and Munshi Lal. The assessment yr concerned is 1965-66 corresponding to the previous year which ended on March 31, 1965. The two assesseds held one-half share each in a building situated in Ram Nagar, Delhi. During the previous year, each of the two assesseds impressed his or her share in the said property with the character of joint family property. Question arose whether the assesseds were liable to pay gift tax because of their impressing their shares in the property with ...
Mohammad Idris and ors. Vs. Mehar Illahi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi262
P.N. Khanna, J.1. This second appeal rises the important question about the scope of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When it came up for hearing before one of us (S.N. Shankar JJ.) it was urged on the authority of Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. v. Happy Homes (Private) Ltd., : [1968]2SCR20 , Sharma Charan v. Ved Paul (1966) 68 Pun Lr 69, Gauri Shankar v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi, , that Mohd. Usman, the tenant having died after suffering termination of tenancy by a notice to quit and then by an eviction decree against him, he left no estate or interest in the property, which could pass on to his sons and daughters, as the legal representatives, could not pled Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, as amended by Act 43 of the 1964, herein called `The Act' as bars to the suit against them for possession filed by the respondent-owner, involving their eviction. As these important questions of law were being...
Mohd. Idris and ors. Vs. Mehar Elahi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi684
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This second appeal raises the important question about the scope of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When it came up for hearing before one of us (S. N. Shankar J.) it was urged on the authority of Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd.. and another v. Happy Homes (Private) Ltd., : [1968]2SCR20 , Shama Charan v. Ved Paul, 1966 P.L.R. 69, Gauri Shankar v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others, that Mohd. Usman, the tenant, having died after suffering termination of tenancy by a notice to quit and then by an eviction decree against him, he left no estate or interest in the property which could pass on to his sons and daughters, the present appellants. As such, they. as his legal representatives, could not plead section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956, as amended by Act 43 of 1964, herein called 'the Act,' as bars to the suit against them for possession filed by the respondent-owner, involving their ev...
Madan M. Behl and anr. Vs. National Small Scale Industries Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1484
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. This petition has been filed to urge that the proceedings against the petitioners arising out of the complaint filed by the respondents under the date 11th May, 1970, be quashed. A certified copy of the said complaint has been placed on the record. I have gone through the complaint. The respondents, according to the allegations in the complaint, had given the machinery detailed in paragraph 3 on hire to accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated in the complaint that accused No. 3, Shri T, C. Gandhi, who was a financier, started the paying of Installments to the respondents and acted as if he was the agent of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is not disclosed as to in what circumstances the respondents accepted accused No. 3 as the agent duly acting on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is clear that the respondents had never entered into any hire-purchase agreement with accused No. 3.2. An agreement is a bilateral document and binds the parties to it. It is not stated in...
Naunihal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi269; 1971LabIC1267
H.R. Khanna (1) Shri Nau Nihal Singh petitioner by means. of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash the impugned Annual Confidential Report made by Shri Hukam Singh, the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as well as the order for the petitioner's reversion to his parent office. (2) The respondents imp leaded in the petition are (1) Union of India through the Secretary to the Ministry of defense, New Delhi, (2) Shri Hukam Singh, Ex-Speaker. Lok Sabha, at present Governor of Rajasthan, (3) The Speaker of Lok Sabha and (4) S. L. Shakder. Secretary, Lok Sabha. (3) The impugned order, which was received by the petitioner on June 16, 1965 read as under :- (4) The services of Shri Nau Nihal Singh. officiating P. S. to Speaker, Lok Sabha, and permanent Stenographer of the defense Headquarters arc replaced at the disposal of the Chief Administrative Officer. Ministry of defense, New Delhi, with effect from the 21st June. 1965.' Th...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Naya Sahitya, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi521; [1972]84ITR567(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The Income-tax Tribunal Delhi Bench) (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal 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 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,349.00 paid by the assessed to M/s. Ranbir Bros., Kanpur was a business expenditure of revenue nature 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed's business of printing and publishing books was a newly established industrial undertaking entitled to the exemption from tax under section 15C of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'(2) The facts relevant to the first question may briefly be stated : M/s. Naya Sahitya, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the assessed) is a registered firm carrying on business of publishing books. The assessed wanted to obtain recognition of the Himachal Pradesh Education Department for some of the textbooks published ...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jaynes Cheap Stores Supply
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi529
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) M/S. Jaynes Cheap Store Supply (herein- B after referred to as the assessed) is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) carrying on business in supply of goods to the Government against the orders placed by them and also of manufacturing, supplying and fixing of 'khats tatties' on contract basis. The assessed had to file quarterly returns for the assessment year 1961-62. He failed to submit the said returns within the prescribed time and filed all the four returns for the year on 2nd June 1962. The assessed also did not offer any Explanationn for not filing the returns within the prescribed time. thereforee, the Sales-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 100.00 under section 9 of the Central Act read with section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Delhi Act). The appeal filed by the assessed before the Assistant Commissioner and the re...
Amar Nath Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1335
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. The prosecution case against the petitioner is best disclosed by the statement of P.W. 3, Khushal Chand Wadhwa. His mother Ishwari Devi, who appeared as P.W. 4, had an account with the New Bank of India, Limited. She owned property in respect of which house-tax was to be paid. Khushal Chand P.W. 3 deposed that he had gone to the Municipal Corporation Officer, Karol Bagh Zone, in the month of April, 1965, with a cheque book be- longing to his mother. She had signed one of the cheques. Her admitted signatures appear on Exhibit P. 2. The amount was not filled in. The payee's name was also to be filled in by P.W. 3. As to why the amount was not filled in P.W. 3 stated:The amount was to be filled by me in the office, after making enquiry.' The deposition excites a little surprise. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi issues bills for house-tax. It is then that the amounts are to be paid. It cannot be understood as to why the amount was to be enquired about. The ...
Bakshi Lochan Singh and ors. Vs. Jathedar Santokh Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi277; 1971RLR33
S.N. Andley, J. 1. The main complaint of the appellant in this case is that the learned Single Judge did not frame any issues in the case and although contentions of fact were raised in the written statement, the suit was disposed or without recording any evidence.2. The suit was filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Jathedar Santosh Singh and four others against S. Balwant Singh and S. Mehtab Singh initially. It was prayed that this Court may declare that the plaintiffs were competent to make an immediate donation of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the establishment of Guru Nanak Eye Hospital in Delhi with the aim to evolve it into a full-fledged institute of opthalmology and to repeat and augment such donations as occasion arises and the finance of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee permit. The plaintiffs alleged that they are the members and office bearers of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Sis Ganj. Chandni Chowk, Delhi, which is a religious and charitable institution r...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Central, New Delhi Vs. P.N. Behl
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi338; [1972]84ITR125(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the following two questions of law have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'A' New Delhi) : (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 5,282.00 incurred by the assessed in connection with his foreign tour was a revenue expenditure entitled to deduction in computing his professional income (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3.000.00 received by the assessed was receipt of a casual and non-recourring nature exempt from tax u/s. 4(3) (vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922?The respondent who will herein-after be referred to as 'Asscssee' is a medical practitioner and is a specalist in the treatment of skin diseases. The assessment year is 1958-59, the relevant previous year being the financi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »