Delhi Court February 1973 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. Mithlesh Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi383; [1973]92ITR9(Delhi); 1973RLR213
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The following question has been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act):- 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the interest amount of Rs. 16,878.00 and the ground rent of Rs. 3,793.00 constituted part of the actual cost of the plot to the assessed for the purpose of determining the capital gain?' The relevant facts as can be gathered from the statement of the case may be briefly stated. On 6-12-1957 Smt. Mithlesh Kumari (hereinafter referred to as the assessed) purchased the perpetual lease-hold rights in an open plot of land from one H. R. Gandhi for a consideration of Rs. 95,000.00. The sale deed, inter alia, provided that in addition to the payment of the price of Rs. 95,000.00, the assessed shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 either in cash or security on account of building se...
Jamil-ul-rehman Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR179
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition has came up on in consequence of a report submitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in exercise of his jurisdiction provided by section 438 the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter called the 'Code'. His order has been read out to me. I have seen the original record. I find a report was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, Delhi under the date 13th June, 1972. The first order on the record bears the date 18th August, 1972 and is in the following terms :- 'I have gone through the calendra u/s 107/ 105 Criminal Procedure Code . received from PS. Lahori Gate and I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents named in the calendra u/s 107/150 Criminal Procedure Code . Issue summons Along with notices u/s 112 Cr. P.C. to the respondents requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be bound down in the sum of Rs. 3,000.00 Along with one surety in (be like amount each to keep peace for a period...
Krishna Wanti and ors. Vs. Rudar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT258; 1973RLR237
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) The appellants are the widow and two sons of Manohar Lal Khurana who died as a result of an accident, which took place at about 11.45 pm. on September 7, 1963. The deceased was traveling at that time as a pillion passenger on a motor cycle owned by respondent No. 6, driven by respondent No 4 and insured with respondent No. 5. The motor cycle was knocked down by a car driven by Rudar Singh, respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. The deceased was thrown on the road due to the impact and received grievous injuries, as a result of which he died 32 hours thereafter in the Safdarjang Hospital. Appellant No. 1, the widow, and appellants Nos. 2 and 3, the sons of the deceased, then filed application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the award of Rs. 25.000.00 as compensation, on the allegation that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the car driver, respondent No. 1, who was driving t...
Agents and Manufacfurers, Delhi Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT500; [1974(28)FLR27]; 1974LabIC220; (1973)IILLJ447Del
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of F. A, 0. Nos. 27, 28 and 29 of 1971 sines they involve common questions of law and fact. The appellant (M/s. Agents and Manufacturers a partnership firm) is carrying on the business of manufacturing wooden furniture, that is, base and cover of sewing machines. The firm is carrying on the above business in three separate premises-No. 508 Circular Road, Shahdara, 525/16 Chhota Bazar. Shahdara and 131 Chhota Bazar, Shahdara. In the first two premises, the wooden base and cover of the sewing machines are manufactured with the aid of power. At premises No. 131. the manufactured goods are polished, finshed, packed and sold. There is no power at the last named premises. It is not disputed that the above three units are managed by the appellant. The Employees State Insurance Corporation found that the manufacturing business carried on by the appellant is covered by (2) The appellant contended before the Employees' Insurance Court that the wor...
PaIn Chancier Vs. Vashist Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR311
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This review application has been filled for the review if my order dt. 21.3.72 by which the revision petition filed by the respondent was allowed and ihe entire suit filed by the applicant with regard to all the prayers in the suit Was dismissed as withdrawn. (2) The first objection raised on behalf of non-applicant is that application has been filed beyond prescriced period of 30 days. [After giving details of dates, the judgment proceeds] It seems to me that there was not only one day's delay in the filing of the review application but the applicant also was not very vigilant in complying with the requisitions of the office within the time allowed to him. If the matter had rested there, I would have been reluctant to condone the delay because there does not appear to be sufficient justification for the delay in refiling the application within the time allowed by the office and if the dates of refiling are to be taken into consideration the review application will ...
Shahastrapal Sharma Vs. Horam and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi35; 1973RLR266
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) Certam aspects of clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 arise for consideration in this appeal. Clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1) is as follows:- '14. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant: 'PROVIDED that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:- that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›