Delhi Court September 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.
Narinder Singh Vs. Khaliqur-rehman and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi184
B.C. Misra, J.1. This order will dispose-of two writ petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 564-D) and 565-D of 1963). They have been filed by the same parties and arise under the same circumstances aggrieved by the same order of the learned Chief Commissioner (now known as Lieutenant Governor). For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from the first mentioned writ petition. This has been filed by Narinder Singh who is son of Bhagwan Singh deceased (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and who is the brother of respondents Nos, 3 and 4. The main contestant in this writ petition is Khaliqur-Rehman, respondent No. 1 and Saidur-Rehman who is the contesting respondent in the second mentioned write petition along with other legal representatives of their deceased father Syed Abdul Latif. It appears that one Aziz-ur-Rehman, predecessor of the contesting respondent was the owner of the land in dispute and in 1948 he entered into a partnership with Bhagwan Singh deceased and another. Eventual...
J.B. Bottling Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR512(Delhi)
Khanna, J.1. This petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed by Messrs. J. B. Bottling Co. P. Ltd. (herein called 'the petitioner') against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, refusing to state the case and refer the following questions, said to be questions of law arising out of its order in respect of two appeals of the petitioner relating to assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65.2. For the assessment year 1963-64, the following questions were suggested :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the disallowance of the sum of Rs. 49,316 under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being remuneration paid to the directors of the assessed-company, in accordance with the terms of its articles of association ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the legitimate business needs of the company and the benefit derived by or accruin...
Official Liquidator of R.S. Motors (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Jagji ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1973
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas381(Delhi); ILR1974Delhi243
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) This prosecution under Section 454(5-A) of the Companies Act, 1956, requires reference first to some of the admitted facts of the case. R. S. Motors (P) Ltd., is a company which was ordered to be wound up on 7th October, 1969, by this Court. On the date of the winding up order, some of the records of company were with C I.D. Crime Branch and the remaining records were with the Liquidator. Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 requires the Directors of the company to submit a statement of affairs within 21 days of the winding up order subject to an extension being granted for an additional period which might extend to three months. The Offcial Liquidator sent notices to the two accused-directors, Shri Jagjit Singh Sawhncy and Shri Gurcharan Singh Sawhney. on 15th December, 1969, calling upon them to submit a statement of affairs.. The directors replied to say that all the books of the company had been removed in October, 1967. by the C.I.D. Crime Branch and the books...
Anil Narendra Vs. Virendra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi117
Avadh Behari, J. (1) At the conclusion of the hearing I announced my judgment. I dismissed the objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act filed against the award dated November 3, 1969. and made the award a rule of the court. I now proceed to give ray reasons.(2) This is an unfortunate litigation between two brothers and their sons Mahashaya Krishan was the founder of a well known newspaper Daily Pratap. His two sons K. Narendra and Virendra continued the business of that newspaper after his death. Anil Narendra is the son of K. Narendra. Lalit Moban is the son of Virendra.(3) The parties entered into a partnership on February 27, 1963. A deed in writing was executed. The arrangement was that K. Narendra and his son Anil Narendra will run the Delhi office of the newspaper 'Daily Pratap'. Virendra and his son Lalit Mohan will look after the Jullundur office. Daily Pratap is published both at Delhi and Jullundur.(4) It appears that this partnership business could not be ca...
In the Matter Of: National Conduits (P) Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas219(Delhi); ILR1974Delhi535; [1974]94ITR378(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) M/S. National Conduits (P) Ltd., is a company which has gone into liquidation. Shri S. S. Arora one of its directors was drawing a salary from the company. For the period covered by the assessment years 1961-62 to 1965-66, assessments were made by the Income Tax Officer in respect of the income of Shri Arora, who consequently, became liable to pay, in the aggregate, a sum of Rs. 46,719.00 as tax. Shri Arora submitted certificates of deductions showing that a sum of Rs. 44,000.00 had been deducted by the company at source. It seems that this amount was never paid by the company. The Income Tax Officer, Special Circle Ix, served the Official Liquidator with a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, calling upon the Official Liquidator to pay a sum of Rs. 44,000.00. This was by notice dated 12th January. 1970 Later, the Income Tax Officer 11(2) (Collection). New Delhi, dealt with the case and corresponded with the Official Liquidator, who informed him th...
Agan Lal Vs. Kapuri Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR63
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This second appeal U/S 39 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, must be dismissed on the short ground that what the appellant seeks to raise are concluded by the concurrent findings of facts by the court below which could not. be allowed to be reagitated in the circumstances of this case in second appeal. (2) The facts leading to the appeal lie in narrow compass. The appellant has been a tenant in the premises in dispute for the last about 30 years. The respondent had purchased the property from the previous owner who in turn had purchased it from the. owner who had let out the premises to the appellant. The respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant, inter alias on the ground that premises in dispute had been let out to the appellant for the use as a residence and that since that appellant and members of his family shifted their residence to a house built by the appellant's wife, neither the appellant nor any member of his family has been residing in the premises in...
Pray in S. Shah Vs. Govind K. Sharma Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR128
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) Appellant is and was residing at Bombay. He had let the suit premises to respondent 1 through his agent who was residing in neighbouring house for Rs. 235.00. A lease deed was drawn up which was sent to Bombay for appellant's signature. Consent to sub-let was given on condition of enhancement of rent to Rs. 250.00. After about 5 years appellant sued respondent for unlawful sub-letting stating in the petition that a lease deed was executed between the parties. Later alleging that no such deed was written, he applied for permission to amend the petition which was refused. The controller and the Tribunal hied that such a deed was written and the landlord through his agent had given consent to sub-let. Appellant appealed to the High Court.] Para 12 onwards the judgment is : - (2) In the present case the landlord admitted unequivocally in his petition for eviction that there was an agreement of tenancy between himself and the tenant (respondent 1). That was clearly ...
Shalimar Tar Products India Ltd. Vs. H.C. Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi389
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed under setion 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the tenant company against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 7th October, 1972, by which he has affirmed the order of the Additional Controller dated 7th September, 1970, finally maintaining the order of eviction of the appellant on the ground of unlawful sub-letting mentioned in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section I of Section 14 of the Act.(2) The material facts of the case briefly stated arc that the appellant was inducted in the property in dispute which is situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi, as a tenant w.e.f. 1st February 1956 on a rent of Rs. 727.25 p.m. for a period of five years under a lease deed which was neither stamped nor registered. However, on the expiry of five years the lease was extended for another period of five years expiring on 31st of January, 1965 by exchange of letters. It appears that ...
State Vs. B. Hukam Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi419
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This judgment will also dispose of Cr. Appeal 136 of 1973 filed by Hukam Chand and Jai Chand. who will hereafter be called the appellants. The appellants arc brothers. Their brother Bishan Chand, who was also an accused in this case, is said to be absconding and is not available for arrest. (2) This is a case of quadruple murder in village Mahipal Pur; the facts alleged by the prosecution are briefly as follows. (3) Kishan Chand alias Billoo, brother of the appellants, was murdered some time in July, 1970. In that connection Rajbir son of Chhote Lal (one of the four deceased in this case) and Shri Bhagwan (another deceased) son of Jagdish Chander (P. W. 16) were convicted by the Sessions Court and each of them awarded life imprisonment on 30-4-1971. Before the appeal in that case was decided (it is stated to have been subsequently set aside by this Court) the present occurrence took place on account of the aforesaid enmity. (4) Two days earlier to the present occu...
Jai Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi494
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The appellant (Jai Chand) has been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for having been in possession of a rifle the license in respect of which only his brother Hari Chand had, with the intention of using it unlawfully. (2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that he along with his two (3) The appellant along with his brother Hukam Chand went to the shop of Chhote Lal in the bazar in village Mahipal Pur at about 4 p.m. on 9-1-1972 when Chhote Lal was shot with a rifle and also hit with Pharsha. Jai Chand took the rifle from his brother Bishan Chand, who had fired a shot earlier at Chhote Lal; Jai Chand also fired from it. Subsequently Jai Chand and Hukam Chand are said to have proceeded towards the house of Jagdish Chander and in the street near the house of Mukhtiar master, Hukam Chand dealt Pharsha blows on Jagdish Chander's wife Smt. Laxmi Devi and his young son Anil Kumar, whereas Jai Cha...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »