Delhi Court January 1974 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. Sohan Lal Nayyar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi802; [1974]95ITR90(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) Shri S. L. Nayyar, who will be referred to as the assessed, was a partner of the firm of M/s Beli Ram and Sons. Under an arrangement with the other partners of the firm, the assessed was entitled to receive commission of 1% on the sales effected by the firm in addition to a salary of Rs. 1,000.00 per month. The payment of the salary and commission was in consideration of the services of the assessed in promoting the sales of the firm. The assessed entered into an agreement dated 1-4-1960 with one Shri Laxmi Narain, who was an employee of the firm in charge of the Sales Section. Under this agreement, the assessed agreed to pay i per cent out of his own commission to Shri Laxmi Narain if the sales reached Rs. 15 lakhs per year ; but no commission was payable to him if the above target of sales fellshort by more than 10%. During the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, the assessed paid a sum of Rs. 7,568.00 to Laxmi Narain under the agreement date...
The Associated Traders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Cloth and Gen ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi790
S.N. Andley, C.J.(1) The appellants. Associated Traders and Engineers (Private) Limited are carriers. They used to carry goods consigned by Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited (respondent No. 1) to themselves or to their consignees in various parts of the country. The goods of respondent No. 1 which were consigned were covered by insurance policies issued by London and Lancashire Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 2) and Concord of India Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 3). (2) Shortly stated, the facts are that on March 24, 1961, 28 bales containing towels and cloth were consigned by respondent No. 1 to self at Nagpur through the appellants. After the goods reached Nagpur, they were stored in the bonded warehouse maintained by the Nagpur Corporation as the octroi duty payable thereon was not paid by respondent No. 1 or by appellants or by M/s, Janta Garage in whose truck they were carried. There was a fire in the bonded warehouse on March 28, 1961 during riot...
Malik Chand Vs. Zubeda Begum and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi160
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This second Appeal under section 39 of She Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act', rates' some interesting question as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 85 of the Evidence Act and in particular the question whether the presumption provided under the said Section could be available where the document in question had been attested by aforeign authority and as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, hereinafter called 'the Enemy Act', but, unfortunately for the appellant, must be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time. It has been filed in the following circumstances.(2) On October 3, 1960. Smt. Zubeda Begum. Smt. Sugra Begum. Smt. Zohra Begum, Smt. Nasira Begum for self and on behalf of her minor sons Abid Ali, Wahid Ali and Liak All and her daughter Suraiya Begum filed an application for the eviction of respondent from property bearing No. 3705-6, Ward Vii, Shah Ganj. Delhi under Section ...
Indian Refrigeration Industries Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1974
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ426Del
B.C. Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the management against an order of Shri Ved Parkash Aggarwal, Labour Court, Delhi, dated December 18, 1965 (Annexure 'L'). By this order the Labour Court has awarded to the workman Hardial Singh back wages at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from September 16, 1964 to February 28, 1965, computed at Rs. 550 besides Rs. 150 on account of bonus, making a total of Rs. 700 while the claim of the workman for traveling allowance and dearness allowance has been rejected in an application under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The material facts of the case are that Hardial Singh (second respondent) was an employee of the petitioners and was dismissed by them on May 2, 1963. Since an industrial dispute had been pending, the petitioners applied to the Industrial Tribunal for grant of approval of dismissal of the workman. The same was, however, refused by Shri Anand Narain Kaul. Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, by order dated October 24, ...
Management of Northern India theatres Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ235Del
B.C. Misra, J.1. The management-petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of the Labour Court dated January 15, 1966 by which in proceedings instituted under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a sum of Rs. 560 has been computed as bonus payable to Padam Sain Jain, workman (who is second respondent in this petition) for the financial year 1963-64. The Labour Court also allowed payment of another sum of Rs. 100 which had become due on account of a mistake in some calculation, thereby making a total of Rs. 660.2. The material facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent No. 2 workman was employed with the petitioner as an accountant but the management terminated his services with effect from May 9, 1964. The respondent was alleging wrongful dismissal and so both the parties approached the Conciliation Officer for settlement of the dispute. A settlement was arrived at between the parties on September 8, 1964 (copy fil...
Sundri Bai and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi181
B.C. Misra, J.1. One Daulat Ram who had died on 26th August, 1961 (the date given in the impugned order as 13th January, 1961 is admitted by the counsel for the parties to be incorrect) left behind him a widow and three sons. The widow and two of the sons are Petitioners in this writ petition while the other son Jarnman Lal is respondent No. 3. The other respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the Union of India and the Chief Settlement Commissioner.2. The writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Government dated 21st December, 1965 passed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 44 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dismissing the revision against the order of Shri Rajni Kant, Authorised Chief Settlement commissioner dated 27th October, 1965 by which he dismissed the revision and maintained the appellate order of the authorised Settlement Commissioner dated 31st July, 1965. The result was maintenance of the order ...
Sakhi Mohd. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR321
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) The grievance raised by this petition is that the Additional District Magistrate, Delhi should not have affirmed the order dated the 14-11-1973 passed by the Magistrate attaching shop Nos. 279 and 279A situated in Chowfc Jama Masjid, Delhi in exercise of the jurisdiction provided by section 145(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called 'the Code'. In the course of examining the various aspects of the litigation apart from the orders passed by the Civil Court, I have gone through the preliminary order passed under section 145(1) of the Code. Section 145(1), is :-(........,) (2) A competent order passed under the afore-quoted provision must contain the grounds on the basis of which the Magistrate may have felt satisfied that he should require the parties concerned in the alleged dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader within a time to be fixed by him in order to put in written statement of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual po...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Ram Kishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1448
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) This Cuse relates to alleged storing for sale adulterated Suji by Ram Kishan respondent at shop No. 8247, New Anaj Mandi. Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi. A sample of the Suji was taken by a Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on November 4, 1969. A part of the sample on being delivered to the Public Analyst was reported to be adulterated due to the presence of insect infestation and also due to 2.95 per cent excess in passing through a No. 100 sieve. (2) On a complaint being filed against Ram Kishan. under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 he was convicted by the trial Magistrate and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to a fine of Rs. 1,000.00. On his appeal to the Court of cession, Shri J.D. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted him by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence. Against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge the p...
Madho Ram, Vs. H.G. Sekhri,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi907
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three writ petitions, being CWs 156-D and 215-D of 1965 and 91-D of 1966. The petitioners in CWs 156-D and 215-D of 1965 are the firm named and styled as Messrs Madho Ram, Lal Chand, Charanjit Singh, Harbans Lal Khosla, Bhagwat swarup and B. R. Chawla, and its six partners, whose names form part of the said firm's name. The respondents in both these petitions are the Sales-tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Delhi, the Commissioner of Sales-tax, Delhi, and the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. The petitioners in Cw 91-D of 1966 are the firm, run under the name and style of Messrs Kidar Nath, Lal Chand, Madho Ram, Jagdev Singh, Sunder Lal and B. R. Chawla, and its six partners. The five respondents in this petition are the Sales-tax Officer, Ward No. 11, the Sales-tax Officer, now holding charge of Ward No. 14, Commissioner of Sales-tax, Collector of Delhi, and the Union of India. As the...
Security and Finance Private Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. B.K. Bedi and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1974
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas499(Delhi); 10(1974)DLT181
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) M/S. Security and Finance Private Limited registered under the Companies Act was ordered to be wound up by this Court and on 20th March, 1969 an Official Liquidator was appointed its provisional liquidator. The Official Liquidator filed a complaint on 16th July, 1969 under Section 454(3) and (5A) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act; on the allegation that though he had issued notice dated 21st April 1969, calling Upon respondent No. 1 to submit before him the statement of affairs of the company but they have neither appeared before him nor have they complied with the notice nor the statement of affairs has been filed nor any reasonable excuse for the non-filing has been given. Accord- ingly it was prayed that this Court be pleased to summon the accused and punish them according to law. During the pendency of this complaint before the learned Single Judge question arose as to on whom the burden lies to show that there was no reasonable excuse f...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »