Delhi Court May 1972 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1972 Page 4 of about 39 results (0.023 seconds)Airfoam Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Director-general of S ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi420; 1973RLR116
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) This is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. It was opposed by the respondent and on 6-8-1971, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether in any arbitration agreement was entered into between the parties O.P.P. 2. If issue No. is proved in the affirmative whether the said agreement should be filed in this court 3.WHETHERthe contract between the parties was repudiated by the respondents as alleged by the petitioner and if so what is its effect on any arbitration agreement that may have been entered into between the parties, the arbitration agreement being one of the clauses in the conditions of contract ? 4. Relief. (2) At the hearing, both counsel agreed that the third issue need not be decided because it would not affect the result. No arguments were addressed to me on this issue and, thereforee, I shall not deal with it. The first and the second issues can be dealt with together as only one question was canvassed, and that was whether on t...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Lal Vs. Ram Das
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi848; 1972RLR98
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) Under section 6(1)(A)(b) as well as under section 6(1)(B)(2)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) the annual standard rent in relation to any premises is to be a percentage of the aggregate amount of (1) the reasonable cost of construction and (2) the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of the construction'. The first factor was considered in Diwan Chand vs. Tirath Ram 1972 R C.R. 88. The second factor was briefly considered in Prem Kumar Bhatia Vs Shiv Dutt Sharma, 1969 R. C. R. 575. It was contended for the appellant that a later decision in Chuni Lal vs. Ram Parkash, 1990 RCR. 67, has impliedly taken a view different from the view expressed in Prem Kumar Bhatia vs Shiv Dutt Sharma. B. C, Misra, J., thereforee, referred the following question to Division Bench, namely :- Whether the market price of lease-held land comprised in the tenanted premises as, on the date of the commencement o...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Ram Vs. Bharat Insurance Company and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi180; [1974]44CompCas190(Delhi)
1. The plaintiff (Daulat Ram) is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,000/- on the insurance policy which has been taken by Smt. Chawli Devi being her adopted son he was the nominee of the policy. the policy was effective from 13-9-1955 in respect of which it is stated. that the respect of which it is stated. that the premiums due until the death of Smt Chawli Devi on 30-9-1956. had been paid.2. The suit was dismissed by the learned Commercial Sub Judge 1st Class. Delhi on 12-6-1961 on the grounds s that she had not insurable interest and that she ahd stated in the proposal the was literate and did not observe pardah, which statement had been proved to be incorrect. The suit was resisted by the Life Insurance Corporation. The successor- in interest of the Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd., also on the ground that she was suffering from diabetes which fact she had not disclosed the finding on this question of fact was in the favor of the plaintiff.3. The most important question ...
Tag this Judgment!The Controller of Estate Duty, Delhi Vs. Suresh Chandra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi475B; [1973]91ITR42(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) Late Lala Thakurdas was the karta of a Hindu un-divided family consisting of himself, his wife Smt. Jawala Devi and his two minor sons, Suresh Chandra and Arnrit Rai. The deceased also had a daughter named Kamla Devi. He died on 22-11-1957. At that time his daughter was already married. (2) During the course of assessment proceedings in respect of- the estate of Lala Thakurdas, who will hereafter be referred to as the deceased, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty noticed from the personal accounts of the deceased with various concerns that he had transferred by way of gifts the following amounts to his two sons and daughter on the dates noticed against each :- Date Name of recipient Amount transferred 28-12-1954 Suresh Chandra Rs. 75.000.00 Arnrit Rai Rs. 75.000.00 Kamla Devi Rs. 25,000.00 1-11-1956 Suresh Chandra Rs.35,000.00 Arnrit Rai Rs. 35.000.00 31-7-1957 Suresh Chandra Rs. 61,000.00 Arnrit Rai Rs. 61.000.00 (3) The accounts showed that the deceased as k...
Tag this Judgment!S. L. Luthra Vs. Narender Kumar Puri
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi44; 8(1972)DLT440
Safeer, J.(1) This petition is directed against the order dated the 13th of March, 1972, by which the trial court while granting leave to defend a suit covered by order 37, rule 2 of the 'Civil Procedure Code imposed the condition that the defendant should furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 3,000.00 by the 28th of March, 1972. The suit had been filed on the basis of a promissory note. (2) The counsel appearing for the petitioner has read out to me the affidavit filed before the trial court. The principal defense raised was that the plaintiff was a money-lender who had not got himself registered as such and had not bean submitting six monthly statements of accounts, as required by the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act. It was stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff should have filed the original pronote along with the plaint. At the same time in another paragraph it was stated that the promote was not sufficiently stamped. The trial court was to determine whether the grounds ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Mohan Kapur and ors. Vs. Gian Chand Kapur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT95
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The appellants are the plaintiffs; the first plaintiff is the son of the second plaintiff (Smt. Ram Devi), who is the second wife of Chandra Mohan (deceased). Prithi Nath (defendant No. 2) and Vijay Kumar (defendant No. 3) are the husband and son, respectively, of his daughter Smt. Tarawati (through his first wife). Chandra Mohan had executed a gift deed (Ex. D-2), a day prior to his marrying Smt. Tarawati, in favor of his brother's son, Gian Chand Kapur (defendant No. 1). Chandra Mohan did not part with the possession of the original gift deed and filed a suit for its cancellation. During the pendency of that suit Chandra Mohan and Gian Chand agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration and the parties to the suit applied to the Court on 31-5-1938 in the following terms: 'IN the above noted case, the parties, of their own accord and free will appoint Rai Bahadur Mr. Harish Chander Advocate Chandni Mahal, Delhi, as the sole arbitrator for the decision of this case. ...
Tag this Judgment!J.R. JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi620
V.D. Misra, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order compulsorily retiring him under Fundamental Rule 56 (j)(i) passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Central Public Works Department, on 30-1-1970 (Annexure V). (2) The petitioner entered service of the Central Public Works Department on 13-1-1943 as Section Officer (Civil) and was duly confirmed with effect from 25-5-1951. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 17-5-1955. He became due for crossing efficiency bar in 1965 at the stage of Rs. 590.00 in the scale of Rs. 350-900. The matter of his being allowed to cross efficiency bar was held over for two years, since certain disciplinary proceedings were pending against him at that time. By an order dated 6-7-1966 the Chief Engineer imposed a penalty of withholding two increments having the effect of postponing his future increments on a charge of gross negligence and carelessness in the discharge of ...
Tag this Judgment!New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas414(Delhi); [1973]90ITR243(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, J.1. The short question which arises in this case is the construction to be put on and the effect of Rule 6 in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1922, which reads as under :' 6. The profits and gains of any business of insurance other than life insurance shall be taken to be the balance of the profits disclosed by the annual accounts, copies of which are required under the Insurance Act, 1938, to be furnished to the Controller of Insurance after adjusting such balance so as to exclude from it any expenditure other than expenditure which may under the provisions of Section 10 of this Act be allowed in computing the profits and gains of a business. Profits and losses on the realisation of investments and depreciation and appreciation of the value of investments shall be dealt with as provided in Rule 3 for the business of life insurance. '2. The assessed is a public limited company doing insurance business. During the accounting year ending on 31st December, 1957, relev...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grace and Style (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas419(Delhi); [1973]90ITR247(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, C.J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in terms of Section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, super-tax was chargeable only on the distributable surplus less the dividend actually declared before the passing of the order under Section 23A on the assessed company '2. The assessment year is 1960-61. The relevant accounting year ended on August 31, 1959. The assessed is a private limited company incorporated on June 26, 1956. Its total income for the relevant year was determined at Rs. 24,997 and the tax thereon amounted to Rs. 11,249. That left a distributable surplus of Rs. 13,748. No dividend was declared within 12 months immediately following the expiry of the previous year for the relevant assessment year. A meeting of the general body of the shareholders took place on November ...
Tag this Judgment!