Delhi Court August 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.
Delhi Administration Vs. Kishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi765; 1973RLR655
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The respondent herein was convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hauz Kazi, Delhi for an offence under section 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150.00 or in default to under go 1' months rigorous imprisonment. The respondent preferred an appeal in the Court of Session against his conviction and the sentence passed against him and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, set aside the conviction of the respondent and the sentence passed against him and allowed the appeal. Against this judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent the State has preferred the present appeal. (2) It is not necessary to state the facts of this case, because the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent only on one ground, namely, that the investigation of the case by the police was illegal inasmuch as the poli...
MartIn Burn Limited Vs. T.C. Moorjani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi785; 1974LabIC968
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) On the termination of their employment with the petitioner. Respondents 2 and 3 applied to the petitioner for payment of gratuity under section 7(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The employer denied that Respondents 2 and 3 were its 'employees' within the meaning of section 2(e) of the said Act. The dispute between them went to the Controlling Authority under section 7(4)(a) of the Act. The Controlling Authority issued notices (Annexures Rill and Riv annexed to the written statement of Respondent No. 1) to the petitioner to appear before it on the 17th April, 1973 to answer the claim of Respondents 2 and 3 regarding gratuity. The petitioner was told that if it did not appear the dispute would be determined ex-parte. The petitioner took an adjournment from the Respondent No. 1 and filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings before the Controlling Authority. The main contention of the petitioner is that Respondent...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor and General Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi23; [1974]94ITR583a(Delhi)
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The question referred to us under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 at the instance of the Revenue is:- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding the amounts of Rs. 2,400.00 and Rs. 11,656.00 as capital receipts of the company?'(2) The relevant assessment year is 1959-60 corresponding to the previous year ending June 30, 1965, and the relevant facts are as follows: The assessed company, besides having other income, carried on cinema films distribution business. It had secured distribution rights of eight pictures for the pre-partition Northern Indian territory. It entered into an agreement dated August 6, 1946 with its sub-distributor, Messrs Sind Film Distributing Company, for the exhibition of these films in Sindh and Baluchistan territory. Clause 2 of the agreement required the sub-distributor to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000.00 as deposit for the faithful performance of the terms and conditions of t...
Hari Chand and Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi204; [1974]94ITR557(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) In pursuance of an order of this Court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred the following two questions to this Court :- '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the sum of Rs, 42.000.00 represents the income of the assessed from undisclosed sources 2. Whether there was any evidence for the Tribunal to hold that the cost of construction of the property estimated by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 84,000.00 was correct ?'(2) The assessment year under reference is the year 1954-55, the relevant previous year being the financial year 1954-55. Shri Kanshi Ram Bassi, the assessed herein, was a partner in a firm M/s Roller Supply Company and also derived income from letting out on hire some rollers of his own. During the assessment proceedings, th...
Nasib Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1973
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT230; 1973RLR684
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition for revision are : Ambassador car No. Dlk 6717 model 1963 belonging to P.R. Mehra was stolen from the parking bay of Paras cinema on 22nd January, 1972. Shri Mehra lodged a report at the P.S. Kalkaji which was registered under P.I.R. No. 55 dated 22nd January, 1972 under section 379 IPC. The report was filed as untraced. The said car was insured with the National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Limited. The insurance company paid the claim of Shri Mehra for the loss of the car. (2) On 25th July, 1972, Nazir Ahmad accused was arrested. On information given by Nazir Ahmad, Ambassador car bearing registration No. Mhn 1523 was seized from Nasib Singh from Kashmir, Dist. Nainital. The investigation revtaled that Nazir Ahmad had sold the car Mhn 1523 to Jai Bhagwan who further sold it to Prem Sagar who in turn had sold it to Nasib Singh on 23rd June, 1972 for Rs. 16,000.00 . The certificate of regis...
State Vs. Ramesh Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi129; 1973RLR88
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (Shri D. C. Aggarwal) has convicted Ramesh Chand under section 302 Indian Penal Code . and imposed capital punishment on him; the other two accused Ami Chand and Yogbir Singh alias Bholu (hereinafter called Bholu) have been convicted under section 302/34 I.PC. and each of them sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. (2) The prosecution case is that at about 7.15 P.M. on 23-6-1972 the deceased (Ram Chander) was driving a scooter (No. Dhr 3894) along Gali Pathshala (in Manakpura) when all the above three accused stopped him near the shop of Mangey Ram Halwai (not examined). Ramesh Chand wanted that the scooter driver should take all the three of them to Karol Bagh in his scooter, but Ram Chander refused to do so. Ramesh Chand threatened saying that he would give Ram Chander a taste of how he would not take them to Karol Bagh and whipped out aknife while the other two accused pulled him out of the scooter. Ram Chander resisted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›