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 Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Lala Shri Dhar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi630; [1972]84ITR192(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The question raised in this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench A) under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is not only interesting but important for its decision may have an effect on numerous policies of personal accident insurance taken by the employers for protecting themselves against the demands for payment of compensation to their employees. Several decisions were cited before us by counsel for the parties, but none of them had a direct bearing on the question. In a way thereforee, it may be said, that the question is rest Integra and its decision turns on the meaning of the word 'perquisite' as used in Section 7 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 which will hereafter be referred to as the Act. (2) The question has arisen in connection with the assessment of the respondent who will hereafter be referred to as the assessed in respect of the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and relates to his income under ...
Prakash and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi811
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Writ petition Nos. 275/70 and 235/70. The petitioners in these cases have challenged the virus of section 321, 322 and 420 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The questions involved in all the petitions being the same they have been argued together by Shri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for all the petitioners. (2) For purposes of decision, facts in civil writ 275 of 1970 were referred to and it will be sufficient to state them briefly : (3) The petitioners in this writ petition carried on business of selling vegetables and fruits by carrying them on 'rehires' (hand-carts) in Tilak Nagar area. Section 420 of the Act provides that no person shall, without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of a license granted to him by the Commissioner expose for sale in any place any article whatsoever. According to section 321 of the Act, no person except with the permission of the Commissioner an...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bharat Oxygen Gass Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi385
S.N. Andley, J (1) This is an application under section 5 of the. Indian Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condensation of the delay in filling the appeal in this Court. (2) The respondent had filed Suit No. 46 of 1966 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, against the appellant for a mandatory injunction directing it to issue a license to them for storing gases in the premises bearing No. 16, Darya Gunj, Delhi. The value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee was fixed at Rs. 130.00 while its value for purposes of jurisdiction was fixed at Rs. 20,000.00. By his judgment and decree dated August 21, 1969 the Subordinate Judge issued the injunction prayed tor. Against this decree, the appellant filed an appeal in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi. In the memo. of appeal the same valuations were shown for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction as had been shown in the suit. The respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the Senior Subordinate Judge t...
R.C. Roy Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi186; ILR1971Delhi584
V.S. Deshpande, J. 1. The legality of the termination of the temporary employment of the petitioner by one month's notice dated 29-7-1967 (Annexure H to the writ petition) is challenged in this writ petition as being contrary to Art. 311(2) of the Constitution under the following circumstances.Recruitment of the Central Reserve Police Force is made by the Central Government under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 framed there under (hereinafter called the Rules). Under Rule 16 all members of the Force shall be enrolled for a period of three years. At the end of the period, those not given substantive status or not declared as quasi-permanent shall continue as temporary employees liable to be discharged on one month's notice. Rule 108 is as follows:'108 Probation and confirmation - (1) The selected candidate shall be appointed or promoted to a superior post in the Force on probation for a period of t...
Banarasi Lal Vs. Neelum
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi748
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated December 17, 1969 of Jagjit Singh J. whereby he dismissed F.A.O. No. 30 of 1969 as withdrawn. This dismissal was in pursuance of a statement made by the appellant undertaking not to press the said F.A.O. which should be deemed to have been withdrawn if the respondent took an oath detailed later. The respondent took the oath as offered by the appellant and Jagjit Singh J. dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. (2) The respondent was granted a decree for judicial separation on January 31, 1969, by Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Additional District Judge, Delhi, against the appellant. F.A.O. No. 30 of 1969 was filed in this Court by the appellant and was heard by Jagjit Singh. J. On December 17, 1969, the appellant made a statement that if the respondent would state in the Court by taking an oath in the name of the .parties' son, Megh Kumar alias Vishal, that she had not met or talked to the appellant after June 30, 1967 on the occas...
R.K. Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi254
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The petitioner, R. K. Gupta, challenges the order dated August 21, 1969 passed by the President of India placing him under suspension with immediate effect from the aforesaid date. The order has placed a further restriction on the petitioner by prohibiting him from leaving New Delhi which has been specified as his headquarters without the previous permission of Mr. K. Rajaram who has signed the order as the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in. the Ministry of Industrial Development, Internal Trade and Company Affairs (Department of Industrial Development). (2) The petitioner was functioning, at the time of his suspension, as a Development Officer in the Directorate General of Technical Development. At the relevant time the Director General of Technical Development was Dr. B. D. Kalelkar. The Union of India; the aforesaid Mr. K. Raja Ram and Dr. B. D. Kalelkar are respondents Nos. 1 to 3, respectively. (3) The order of suspension is challenged on the ground...
Babu Ram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi622
S.N. Sarkar, J. (1) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution Balu Ram has prayed that the two telephone connections installed in his business premises disconnected by the respondents may be directed to be restored with liberty to the respondents to bill him at shorter intervals of time to ensure payments of the calls made by him from these telephone connections. Respondents to the petition are the Union .of India, General Manager, Telephones, Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Delhi Gate Telephone Exchange respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. (2) The petitioner is carrying on share business with his office at 44-A, Coronation Hotel, Fatehpuri, Delhi, with the assistance of telephones. In 1966, he applied for a telephone connection under the 'own your telephone' scheme of the respondents. This connection was granted to him in December, 1966 and telephone No. 263578 here after referred to as the 'first telephone' was installed at his office. Due to business needs, he applied ...
Gian Wati and ors. Vs. Ranpat Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT362; 1971RLR9
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The Controller disallowed the application of the applicants landlordsfor the amendment of the application for the eviction of the respondent tenant and others. Controller also allowed anapplication by three persons Man Singh.Rai Singh and Kamal Singh for being jorned as respondents. The landlord appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal against both these orders bit the appeal was dismissed. The landlords have again challenged the same orders in this second appeal On behalf of the respondents, a prelimary objection is urged to-the maintainability of the appeal on the grough that the orders coil-id not said t6 beorders under the Act' within the meaning of section 38(1) of the Delhi Rent- Control Act and they were- not appealable even to the Rent Control Tribunal there- under muchless to the High -Court under Section 39 of the Act. (2) In Central Bank of India Ltd. v, Gokal Chand^, the Supreme Court laid down the test of what is an order under the Act' which is appealab...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›