Delhi Court May 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kishni Bai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1973
Reported in: [1977]110ITR19(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. On the 28th February, 1964, Shrimati Kishni Bai filed avoluntary return declaring an income of Rs. 29,547 before the income-taxauthorities at Delhi. The income was for the year ending 31st March,1959, and related to the assessment year 1959-60. The Income-tax Act, which was in force during the assessment year was the Act of 1922, but the return was filed when the Act of 1961 was in force. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but in the assessment order stated that the assessment had been made under Section 23(3), which was the relevant provision of the Act of 1922. The assessment order shows that the income was computed at Rs. 30,801.2. The assessed appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner partly on the ground that the assessable income had been increased and partly on the ground that the assessment could not be made under the Act of 1922. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessment should have be...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mohan Lal and Two ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1973
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT35; ILR1973Delhi644
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) These appeals are against a common judgment in which questions of law involved are the same, and, thereforee, it would be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment. (2) The appeals have been filed against the decree and judgment dated the 21st February, 1966, passed by Shri G. R. Luthra, Senior Sub- Judge, Delhi whereby he dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant against the decree and judgment dated the 28th August, 1964 & 1st September 1964, passed by Shri P. K. Bahri, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, whereby the Sub-Judge decreed the suit of the respondents and granted an injunction against the appellant. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it would be relevant to record the salient facts of the cases in the three appeals. (3) Mohan Lal, respondent in R.S.A. 177-D of 1966 filed a suit against the appellant seeking an injunction against it from making attachment and ordering sale of his property and from invoking other coercive...
Birla Higher Secondary School and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi804; 1974RLR570
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) In the judgment pronounced on 8th December 1972 in Civil Writ No. 562 of 1972 entitled Birla Higher Secondary School and others, v. Lt. Governor, Delhi and others we held that: (A)the Delhi Education Code conferred no power on the Director of Education to order reinstatement of the Principal of Birla Higher Secondary School, and the direction to that effect, as also the subsequent threats to withdraw recognition of and the grant-in-aid to the school for failure to comply with the same were without jurisdiction and/ or justification. (b) the letter dated 11th August 1972 issued by the Deputy Director of Education stopping the grant-in-aid to the school was likewise without jurisdiction and/or justification and (c) the Code had no legal force and the threat to suspend the Management of the School was without authority of law.(2) Consequently, we allowed the petition and ordered the respondents to withdraw and cancel various letters, including the one of 11th August,...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi Vs. Roop Chand and C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT402; [1973(27)FLR424]
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This appeal under section 82 of the Employees' Stale Insurance Act 34 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to- as the Act) has been filed by the Insurance Corporation through the Assistant Regional Director against an order of the Employees Insurance Court dated 28th October, 1966 by which it has rejected the application of the appellant. (2) The fact of the case lie in a narrow compass. It appears that respondent No .1 before me is a partnership concern of which respondent No. 2 is a partner and they constitute a factory within the meaning of clause (12) of section 2 of the Act. The respondents disputed this fact and did not pay the employees' contribution to the appellant which was due under the Act. Eventually, the appellant filed a petition under sec corporation 75(2) of the Act before the Insurance Court on the allegations that the respondents before me had not nude their contribution for the period from 1st January, 1961 to 31st March, 1964, and a sum of Rs 3.170.00 w...
Bashista Bros. Vs. Munshi Lal Om Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR549
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed by the defendants against an order of the trial Court dated 21st March, 1973 by which it had disallowed their, application for amendment of the application for leave to appear and defend the suit. (2) The material facts giving rise to the revision are that the plaintiffs (respondents herein) on 25th August, 1972 instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 13,662.43 on the basis of cheques under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Summonses of the suit were issued and served on the defendant-petitioners on 25th October, 1972 The defendants filed an application under Order 37. Rule 3 of the Code which, was contested by the respondents who in their reply filed on 25th November, 1972 raised an objection that the petitioners had in their application made no prayer for leave to defend the suit, but had claimed; that the suit was barred by time and not maintainable and be dismissed. On the 19th December, 1972, the de...
Ranjit Rai Vs. Chitra Lekha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi260; 1973RLR579
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) This petition was referred to a larger Bench by P. N. Khanna, J. (2) The facts leading to the reference are that the petitioner-husband filed an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the respondent-wife for judicial separation. The respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings and for expenses of litigation. The application of the respondent was contested by the petitioner on the basis of a judgment dated 21st April, 1972, passed by M. R. A. Ansari, J. in F.A.O. No. 12 of 1972. That was a case in which the inherent. jurisdiction of Courts in India was challenged. The appellant in that case was said to be not domiciled in the territory of India. On that submission it was contended in the said appeal that the courts in India had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under the Act. In that context M. R. A. Ansari, J. obser...
Madan Mohan Lal Garg Vs. Brijmohanlal Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT397
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated March 15, 1972 of a learned Single Judge of this Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that the appeal has been filed after the time prescribed thereforee. (2) The firm, Meerut Engineering Works, comprised of three partners, namely, the appellant, respondent No. 1 (appellant's brother) and their father Shanker Lal Garg. The firm on June 9, 1960 applied to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi, for registration of the trade mark 'SHANKER' in respect of the goods manufactured by it. The firm was dissolved on November 1, 1961 during the pendency of this application. After dissolution, respondent No. 1 applied to the Assistant Registrar to amend the application filed by the firm by deleting the names of the appellant and Shanker Lal Garg and entering the name of respondent No. 1 alone in the application for registration of the trade mark. Thereupon, the appellant objected to th...
Sitam Ram Vs. Jai Baboo
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT491; 1973RLR509
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This revision has been referred for decision by a larger bench because of divergence of views expressed in the cases- Vas Dev v. Sohan Singh and others (1968) D.L.T. 492 and Inder Lal Sapra v. Brij Mohan (S.A.O. 300 of 1971) decided on May 24, 1972 on the question whether a judgment-debtor tenant.. during execution of the decree for eviction against him, on the ground of personal bona fide need of the landlord, can agitate the question that the need of the landlord had ceased to exist and, thereforee, the decree was inexecutable. (2) In a suit for eviction filed by the respondent (hereafter called 'the landlord') under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 1952 (hereafter called 'the 1952 Act') for eviction of the appellant (hereafter called 'the tenant') on the ground that the premises were required by him bona fide, the trial court on December 21, 1955 granted a decree for eviction in his favor on the basis of a compromise. According to the compromise, the decree...
Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR568(Delhi)
Ansari, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act,'):'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 30,959 spent by the assessed in the criminal case against Ramji Dass, director, and the employees of the assessed-company for the offence of bribery was not incidental to the assessed's business and was not an item of admissible deduction? '2. As the question itself indicates, the amount of Rs. 30,959 represented the expenses incurred by the assessed-company during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1958-59, in connection with a criminal case against Ramji Dass, director, and other employees of the company. The assessed-company claimed allowance for this amount as revenue expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The assessed's claim was di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›