Delhi Court December 1977 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.
Union of India Vs. H.S. Parasher
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR345
D.K. Kapoor, J. (1) This is an application for revision arising from an application made by the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 123 and 124, Evidence Act before the trial court wherein privilege has been claimed regarding certain documents sought to be summoned by the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff was at the relevant time a Head Clerk serving in the Income Tax Department, who had sought to challenge certain remarks made adversely to him in his confidential reports by means of a suit claiming a declaration and injunction. In the course of that suit the plaintiff summoned-(i) his confidential annual character rolls of' some years, (ii) the transfer and posting file of Class Iii non gazetted Head Clerks for 1969-70, (iii) his own Vigilance file, (iv) the seniority list of Head Clerks in September, 1969 September, 1971 and September, 1973 (v) his own personal file and (vi) The Vigilance Manual. The Subordinate Judge trying the suit decided the application against the Commissioner...
Punjab Cloth Store Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi157B; [1980]121ITR604(Delhi)
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) Since common questions of law arise in these petitions it would be appropriate to dispose them of by a single judgment. (2) Income Tax Case No. 183 of 1975 and Income Tax Reference No. 219 of 1975 pertain to the assessment year 1967-68 ; Income Tax Case No. 184 of 1975 and Income Tax Reference No. 220 of 1975 pertain to the assessment year 1968-69 and Income Tax Case 185 of 1975 and Income Tax Reference No. 221 of 1975 pertain to the assessment year 1969-70. The Income Tax Cases arise out of rejection of form No. 12 filed by the assessed along with its returns for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 seeking registration of the firm while the Income Tax References arise out of the quantum appears filed by the assessed. (3) The assessed deals in the business of cut pieces and terylene cloth on wholesale basis. For the year 1967-68 (accounting period ending on 18th June, 1966) the assessed filed a return of income along with form No. 12 seeeking continuati...
Faridabad Cold Storage and Allied Industry Vs. the Official Liquidator ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi158; [1978]48CompCas432(Delhi); 14(1978)DLT147; ILR1978Delhi279; 1978RLR170
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Shri M.L. Jain, Additional District Judge. Delhi dated 1-10-1966, accepting the claim petition filed by the Official Liquidator under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act. The Official Liquidator in the aforeside claim petition had Prayed for recovery of Rs . 845.32 against the appellant.2. The learned Additional District Judge granted a decree for the recovery of Rs. 504 and the return of empty cylinder in favor of the Official Liquidator and on the failure of the appellant to return the cylinder the Official Liquidator was further held entitled, in the alternative, to the recovery of Rs. 340. The Official Liquidator was also awarded the costs of the Petition3. When the appeal came up before the Division Bench (S. N. Shankar and T. P. S. Chawla, JJ.), the learned Judges referred this appeal to the Full Bench along with Company Appeal No. 2 of 1969. That is how the present appeal has been placed before the Full Bench.4. Ammoni...
R.C. Abrol and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. A.R. Chadha and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi167; [1979]49CompCas77(Delhi); 14(1978)DLT35; 1978RLR163
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench in view of the orders of Shankar and T. P. S. Chawla, JJ. dated 17-10-1974 along with Company Appeal No. 2 of 1969.2. However, during the hearing it was noticed that the point involved in the present appeal was somewhat different from the points urged during the hearing of the Company Appeal No. 2 of 1969, and thereforee, this appeal is being dealt with by a separate order.3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 25th August 1972 passed by P. N. Khanna, J. on the application of the Official Liquidator under S. 446(2)(b) and S. 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 against M/s A. R. Chadha & Co. and four others.4. The learned Company Judge had taken the view that the claim petition against A. R. Chadha and Company (respondent No. I in the claim petition) was barred by time and unenforceable under clause (b) of S. 446(2) of the Companies Act and dismissed the application against the said respondent. The app...
Shanker Housing Corporation (Ext.) Vs. Mohan Devi and Eight ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi255; 14(1978)DLT153; 1978RLR205
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.(1) When Suit No. 582 of 1967 came up for hearing before S. S. Chadha J. on 30th September, 1975, on the original side of this Court, the learned Judge noticed that there was a conflict of judicial opinion as regards the scope of the expression 'persons suing' in Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Considering that the said question of law is one which arises frequently in suits instituted by firms and, thereforee, requires to be decided by a larger Bench, the learned Judge referred the following question :- 'WHETHERthe expression 'persons suing' in Section 69(2) of the Act means 'all the partners of the firm who were its partners at .the time of the accrual of the cause of action' or it means' all the partners of the firm who are its partners at the time of the institution of the suit' ?'IT is thus that this matter has. come up before us for our opinion on the aforesaid question of law.(2) For a proper appreciation of the question that has been ref...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›