Delhi Court March 1976 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.
Harvansh Kumari Vs. J.P. Sehgal Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1976
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT223; 1976RLR440
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to.as 'the Act') has been filed by the legal representative of the landlord against the appellate judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 10th September, 1970, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Additional Controller dated 27th July, 1968, finally refusing the petition of the landlord turn eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of unlawful subletting, but for different reasons. (2) The material facts of the case are that the first respondent before me is a tenant in respect of premises in dispute situared in Connaught Place, New Delhi. On or about 25th October 1961 the first respondent entered into a partnership with respondent No. 2 (copy Ex. Rw 5/1). On 12th June, 1963 the landlord, who was the predeceos -in-interest of the appellants, instituted a petition for eviction against respondent No. 1 in which respondent...
P.C. Badhwar Vs. Lajwanti Malik, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi63; ILR1976Delhi644
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This order will dispose of two second appeals (SAO 289 of 1972 and Sao 290 of 1971) both of which have been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the tenant appellant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 16th September, 1971, by which it has allowed the landlords appeal and dismissed the crossappeal which had been filed by the tenant. The order of the Additional Controller which was the subject matter of the appeal was dated 28th August, 1969, by which a sum of Rs. 5000 had been awarded as damages to the tenant. The Tribunal on appeal set aside the order and declined to award any demages. (2) The material facts of the case are that P.C. Badhwar, appellant before me, was a tenant in respect of house No. C-203, defense Colony, New Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 650 per month under the respondent landlady on the material date. The premises had, however, been let out to the appellant on 16th N...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i, Central Revenue Building, New Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)165
ORDERT. V. R. Tatachari, C.J. - This is an application filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, New Delhi under section 256(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, praying that the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B be required to state the case and refer the following questions said to arise out of the order of the aforesaid Tribunal dated January 22, 1975, in the Income-Tax Appeal No. 2339 of 1973-74, relating to the assessment year 1967-68 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was reasonable cause for delay in filling the return of income ?'2. The assessed is Shri Daljit Singh. The accounting period ended on 31st March, 1967 and the return of income was due on 30th September, 1967. He applied for extension of time, and the same was extended till 30th October, 1967. He, however, filed the return on 4th November, 1970. Prior to this, the Income-Tax Officer passed an order on 31st December, 1969, raising ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Revenue Building, Delhi-i, New ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)184
ORDERT. V. R. Tatachari, C.J. - This is an application filed by the Comm., Income-Tax Delhi-I, New Delhi, under section 256(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, praying that the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal be required to state the case and refer the following question stated to arise out of the order the said Tribunal, dated 3rd March, 1975, in Income-tax appeal No. 2483 of 1973-74 relating to the assessment year 1970-71 :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in coming to the conclusion that the application for registration of the firm should be granted 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case was the Tribunal right in coming to the conclusion that firm was entitled to benefits of registration 2. The assessed firm, M/s. Ashok Investment Co., Delhi was constituted under a deed of partnership, dated 1st September, 1964, consisting of two partners, Shri K. L. Rajgarhia and Smt. Shanti Devi Kedia. Three minors were also admitted to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Kali Ram Kailash Chandra, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)0169B
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The income tax Tribunal Delhi Bench has in compliance of the order of this court referred to us the following question for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal has correctly applied the Explanationn to section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thereforee whether the penalty imposed on the assessed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has been rightly quashed by the Tribunal ?'The assessed is a registered firm and carried on contract business at Rishikesh and other contract works at other places in the relevant assessment year 1965-66. It returned an income of Rs. 47,578/-. The Income Tax Officer considered the income returned low and applied a net profit rate of 12.5% on the contract receipts, and after adjustment of interest on borrowed capital and depreciation and adding interest on Government securities, assessed the income at Rs. 70,770/-. Thereafter proceedings for penalty were...
Vinod Chandra Dube Vs. Aruna Dube
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi24; 12(1976)DLT200; 1976RLR526
1. This is a husband's appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge dated January 31, 1974, refusing him a decree of nullity,2. The appellant Vinod Chandra Dubey was married to the respondent Shrimati Aruna Dubey on February 17, 1964. They lived together for a brief period of a year or so. On February 2. 1965, the wife left the husband. Thereafter she never came back to him. There is no child of the marriage.3. On July 16, 1973, the husband brought a petition. He claimed a decree of nullity on the ground of wife's impotency under S. 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) and in the alternative a decree of judicial seperation on the ground of desertion and cruelty under S. 10 of the Act.4. In his petition the husband said that within a month of the marriage he found that the wife did not have menses at all. She had a shrivelled womb and was thus incapable of producing a child. She was impotent and sexless. These were the allegations of the husband.5. The wife did n...
Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. Employees' State Insurance ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi350; 1977LabIC119; (1977)IILLJ420Del
C. Misra, J. (1) This judgment will-dispose of two appeals (FAO 65 of 1972 and Fao 61 of 1972),, filed under section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (34 of 1948), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), both of which arise out of an order dated 29th April, 1972, by which the court below has allowed the claim of the respondent Corporation for recovery of contribution on the overtime payments but has refused interest on the delayed payment for an earlier period. The first mentioned appeal (FAO 65 of 1972) has been filed by the Mills challenging the order for recovery of contribution, while the cross appeal (FAO 61 of 1972) has been filed by the Corporation against the order refusing relief of interest.(2) The material facts of the case are not much in dispute. The respondent Corporation claimed recovery of contribution of the employer on the wages of the employees including the amount of overtime wages paid during the period 30th June, 1969 to 31st March, 1970 and it claimed int...
Kishan Dass Talwar and anr. Vs. Adeshwar Lal Jainand ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi364
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) The plaintiffs in this suit claim that the decree for partition dated April 3, 1968 in Suit No. 680 of 1967 (Shri Nagesh Chand Jain and Others v. Shri Adeshwar Lal Jain) obtained from the High Court of Delhi is a nullity so far as the plaintiffs and other creditors are concerned and the same is not binding on them as it was obtained by fraud, by mis-representation of facts, by willful concealment of facts and due to direct collusion of defendants Nos, 1 to 5. The said partition decree is alleged to have been obtained with an intent to defeat and delay the claims of the creditors and is sought to be avoided by claiming a decree for a declaration to the same effect. (2) It would be necessary to give a short narrative of the material facts leading to the filing of the present suit. A firm M/s. Dhoomimal Dharamdass was started in or about the year 1886 by some ancestors of defendants 1 to 4. The ancestors of defendants 1 to 4 also acquired certain immovable properties. ...
income-tax Officer (Admn.) Range Iii and Company Circle Vii, New Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)0166B
ORDERD. K. Kapur, J. - This appeal has been listed as F.A.O. 60/1969 though it is also shown as C.A. 133 of 1969. The appeal was subsequently directed to be placed before the Company Judge and that is how I hear the matter. The appeal is directed against the order of the official liquidator passed on 19th March, 1969 stating that the Income-Tax Department had not obtained the leave of the High Court at Delhi under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 in spite of a letter pointing this out to the Income-Tax Officer.2. No leave had been taken. It was also stated that the claim had been rejected. Against this order the Income-Tax Officer has taken out a common under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. That Rule, in fact, provides for an appeal by the creditor against the decision of the liquidator which must be filed not later than 21 days from the date of service of the notice. The appeal was actually filed on 10th April, 1969, and seems to be within time. The affidavit in s...
A.K. Chandra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi434
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) The petitioner has moved the petition with the prayer that the order made by the Additional District Judge on 3rd of June, 1975, by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporalion Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') be quashed and the case be remanded back for hearing the appeal on merits. (2) The allegations in the petition are that the petitioner had received an undated notice No. Tax/ND.S.Z./SJ/A/319/72-73 in April, 1973. under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi wanted to increase the assessment of the property tax from Rs. 21,600 to Rs. 27,540 with effect from 1st of April, 1972. The petitioner alleged that he filed the objections dated 19th of April, 1973, assailing the proposed increase in assessment. The objections were disposed of and the final order, according to the allegations in the petition, was passed under section 126 of the Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »