Delhi Court April 1978 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.
Bhai Swinder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1978
Reported in: [1980]124ITR105(Delhi)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has referred the following question to this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 19,783 was liable to be set off against the income of the assesses under the head 'Business' in the two years under reference ?'2. The assessed, late Bhai Sunder Dass, is an individual. We are concerned with the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the relevant previous years being those ended on 12th April, 1958, and 12th April, 1959, respectively. 3. According to the assessed, he carried on a sole proprietary business in the name and style of Messrs. Gianchand Sunderdass (Gian Chand being the name of his brother) at Jhelum (now in Pakistan) till 1948. The business consisted of supplying stories and other building materials to the Government under contracts. While he was at Jhelum, he had submitted atender to the Central Government for supplying 20,000 bo...
Lachhman Dass Aggarwal Vs. Punjab National Bank, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi192; 1979LabIC211
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) When can an order be said to be based on a compromise between the parties to a writ petition on the analogy of order Xxiii Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code? What terms can be implied in such an order Does such an order operate as rest judicata These questions arise at the threshold of this writ petition. (2) The petitioner is an employee of the respondent Bank. Staff circular No. 20, dated 28th October, 1952, issued by the Bank governed the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Bank. As a result of sub-section (9) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, this order (circular No. 20) made by the Bank is to be deemed to be regulations made by the Bank under sub-section (1) of section 19 prescribing the duties and conduct of officers or other employees of the Bank in its new status after the coming into force of the Act. The relationship is, thereforee, governed by a statutory regulation. The relevant ...
Tarlok Singh Vs. the Suprintendent of Customs and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT183; 1978(2)ELT639(Del)
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) The relevant facts turn the decision of this revision petition are these : on 7th March 1978 the police intercepted a car bearing registration No. Upi 3031 carrying cloth worth about Rs. 50,000. Mukhtiar Singh, Sagar Singh and Tara Chand who were in the car were arrested; 4th person who was identified as Tarlok Singh driver ran away. During investigation the police found that the cloth had been illegally imported from Triveni Bazar. Nepal. The customs authorities were informed of the alleged seizure. (2) On 15th March 1978 Mr. M. R. Kathuria, Custom., Inspector (Preventive) made an application to the Magistrate that the accused are reasonably believed to have committed an offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (briefly ''the Act') and that the clothes and the car are liable to be seized under the Act and prayed that the police be directed to hand over the goods Along with the car to the customs authorities for necessary action. The Magistrat...
Akhtar Begum Vs. Jamshed Munir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi67; ILR1978Delhi249
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against an order dated January 21, 1978 passed by Shri S. P. Singh Chaudhary, Guardian Judge, Delhi, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.(2) The petitioner and the respondent are Sunni Muslims governed by the Hanafi Law of Sunni Muslims. They were married at Delhi (claimed by the petitioner as her home town) in June, 1954 according to the rites of their personal law. After marriage the parties resided at Aligarh. Two children were born out of the wedlock, a son, named Jahangir, now aged about 12 years and a daughter, named Parah, now aged about 7/8 years. Certain differences are said to have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent with the result that the petitioner came away to Delhi in 1976. Subsequently, Farah also came to stay with her at Delhi. In March/April, 1977, it is said, the petitioner received letters and representations from her son, Jahangir, and o...
V.P. Nanda Vs. the Registrar of Companies, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas552(Delhi); 15(1979)DLT160
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The present petition under Section 633(2) of the companies Act) 1956 has been moved by Shri V.P. Nanda, who became a voluntary liquidator of M/s Shri Chatarsal Films Finance Limited in January, 1958, when that company went into voluntary winding up as a result of a petition a resolution of the members of the company. As the winding up was not completed within three years, this later had to be treated as a creditors winding up. The fact of the matter is that winding up is even now not complete though precious little remains to be done would be clear from the facts appearing below, as per the statements in the present petition, the liabilities of the company were about at the commencement of the winding up and the assets were about Rs. 3,300.00 . The losses accounted to Rs. 87,000.00 approximately. It is said that out of the assets, machinery worth Rs. 2,900.00 was attached by the landlord of the Novelty Cinema. Khurja against rent and later this as, set was sold. There...
Prakash Wati Vs. P.C. Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT163
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This is a wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of an Additional District Judge, Delhi, granting the husband's petition for divorce on the ground of desertion.(2) The parties hereto were married at Agra on February 21, 1958. After marriage they lived at Delhi. They have been separated since January 11, 1974 according to the respondent-husband. According to the appellant she was initially turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondent on January 11, 1974 but she came back and lived with him in February, 1975. She was again turned out in March, 1975. On August 14/16, 1975 the respondent filed in application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for grant of a decree for judicial separation. The grounds on which be claimed judicial separation, were cruelty, desertion by the wife and the wife suffering from a communicable disease. This petition was resisted. On May 27,1976 the Act was amended by the marriage law...
The Management of Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research Vs. N.L. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1978
Reported in: [1978(37)FLR1]; ILR1978Delhi482
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) Three questions of law arise in this case : (1)Whether the meaning and content of the terms of reference made under section 10 read with section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is determined by the nature of the industrial dispute which has been referred for adjudication ? (2)Whether a claim referred for industrial adjudication cannot be enlarged by amendment of pleadings beyond the terms of reference ?AND(3) Whether the termination of services by way of a discharge simplicities which may be valid as being bona fide or invalid as being mala fide or as amounting to dismissal or victimisation or imposition of a penalty etc. does not inelude ' retrenchment' which is made for a totally different reason, namely, surplusage resulting from reduction of production or economies effected by the management, etc. ?(2) The respondent Girraj Mal was in-charge of the Library of the petitioner Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research. He was appointed by order dated 30t...
Azian Bi Vs. Ganga Dhar, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi46; ILR1978Delhi346; 1978RLR271
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The only question referred for consideration to this Bench is whether an appeal lies to the Rent Control Tribunal under section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order passed by the Controller under section 25 of the Act refusing to stay dispossession of a person claiming an independent title to the premises which are alleged to be in his possession. (2) The proceedings under the Act are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure as far as it is applicable in view of section 37(2) of the Act. An order of eviction passed under section 14 in favor of the landlord is executable against the tenant as a decree of a civil court under section 42 of the Act. Rule 23 made under the Act reiterates the provision of section 37(2). It would, thereforee, appear that an application for the execution of order or eviction stands on the same footing as an application for execution of a decree in the civil court. (3) Section 25 whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›