Delhi Court May 1978 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Limited Vs. the Compa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas409(Delhi); ILR1979Delhi105
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The important point which arises for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and I am told for the first time, is the construction of sub-section (4) of Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. This provision empowers the Central Government to authorise any member or members of a company to apply to the court under Section 397 or section 398 of the Companies Act notwithstanding that the said member or members do not have either the prescribed holding or numerical strength postulated by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 399 which alone gives the right to a member or members to apply to the court under Sections 397 or 398 of the Companies Act. Section 397 confers powers on the court to grant relief in cases of oppression and Section 398 empowers the court to grant relief in cases of mismanagement of a company. The right to move the court under either of the two sections or both of them, as far as members are conc...
Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. R.C. Mishra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi735; [1978]114ITR753(Delhi)
H.L. Anand, J. (1) What was the precise jural relationship between the petitioners, some of whose exports were routed through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. for short, the Corporation, and the Corporation in relation to these exports, and who,. out of these, was entitled to the benefit of the tax credit as an exporter under Section 280ZC of the Income Tax Act, are the interesting questions that these petitions by the exporters pose turn consideration (2) The petitioners are manufacturer-exporters of Ferro Manganese and Chrome Concentrates and have over the years been manufacturing and exporting these commodities to different buyers, inter alia, with a view to earn foreign exchange. Between the years 1964 and 1965, the petitioners entered into different contracts with a number of foreign buyers for the sale of the two commodities which were, however, routed through the Corporation, an undertaking of the Central Government, to bring it within the system of priv...
Mohan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1832; ILR1978Delhi420
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Mohan Lal, Satiah Kumar and Bhupinder Kumar, appellants, were tried for offences under sections 302, 454 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also charged with an offence under section 25 of the Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge who tried them found them guilty. He sentenced each of them to two years imprisonment under section 454, two years again under section 506 and life imprisonment under section 302. In addition to these sentences he also awarded to each of them one year imprisonment under section 25 read with section 27 of the Arms Act. (2) The prosecution case is this. On June 22, 1974, at about 11.30 a.m. information was received at the police station Rajinder Nagar that three persons had been caught at Akash Taxi Stand, New Rajinder Nagar. This information was given by Mulakh Raj, taxi driver (Public Witness 3). On receipt of this information the police swung into action. They came to the taxi stand. They recorded t...
Official Liquidator, United India General Finance P. Ltd. Vs. H.K. Das ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas177(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This claim petition is under Sections 446, 477 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which the respondents are Shri H.K. Dass Sharma, an ex-director of the company, and M/s. Express Financiers (P.) Ltd. The claim raised in the case is concerning a vehicle No. MYW 4666 which had been given on hire purchase to a party in Mysore. The vehicle was repossessed by the company on 25th April, 1965, and the present application is concerned with the fate of that vehicle. According to the first respondent who is an ex-director, he had directed the chowkidar of the company to deliver the vehicle to the second respondent for the purpose of selling the same. This was on 12th June, 1967. There is no receipt on the records of the company showing that the second respondent had received the vehicle. About a year later, the company was ordered to be wound up as per winding-up order dated 12th August, 1968. The official liquidator wrote on 9th September, 1969, to the second respondent req...
Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi262
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Gurbaksh Singh under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying (1) for the issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the order, No. DSIDC/1-583/2203, dated 4th Aug., 1977, issued by the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the DSIDC) as being against the rules applicable to the petitioner, (2) for directing his continuation in office as Section Officer in the Dsidc without any interfere and (3) for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction requiring the Dsidc not to strike off the petitioner's name from its roll.2. The petitioner imp leaded as respondents to the writ petition (1) The Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC), (2) The Delhi Administration, (3i the Union of India through the Accountant General, Central Revenues and (4) the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.3. A Preliminary objection has been raised in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of th...
Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. Manohar Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi1
1. This is a petition for revision under S. 115 of the Civil P.C. against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 9-2-1978 whereby the learned trial court held that S. 10 of the Code is not applicable to the facts of the case but in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the trial court, however, stayed the present suit on the condition that the defendants Nos.1 to 5 should deposit in court for the period in dispute part of the amount claimed in the present suit @ Rs.371.25 per month and should furnish surety bond for the balance amount claimed in the suit.2. The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of defendants 1, 2 and 4 and it is contended that on the facts of the case S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable, and, thereforee, the trial court should have stayed the suit and had no jurisdiction to impose any conditions while staying the suit.3. The plaintiffs had filed the present suit out of which the present revisio...
Dwarka Dass and Brothers Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR958(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the issue of a notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the ITO. It has been prayed that holding the issue of the said notice to be illegal and without jurisdiction the same may be quashed and a writ of prohibition or in the nature of prohibition be issued to the respondents restraining them from taking any action under the impugned notice including making of reassessment of the petitioner's total income. It has also been prayed that the respondents be restrained from issuing any further notice under Section 142 or under Section 143 of the Act for the purpose of making reassessment and such other or further orders be passed as may be appropriate in the case. 2. The assessment year in question is 1962-63. According to the petitioner, it is a partnership firm carrying on business of commission agents in dry...
inder Mohan Kahanna and ors. Vs. Jai Parkash and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi287b; 1978RLR367
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, for short 'the Act', by the landlords against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal reversing the order of the 1st Additional Rent Controller and dismissing the petition for eviction, comes up before us on a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court and involves consideration of an important question of law as to whether the incorporation by a tenant of his business amounted to parting with the possession of the demised premises to another person w'thin the meaning of clause (b) of proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act so as to entitle the landlords to an order of eviction. The Second Appeal was filed in the following circumstances. (2) It is a common case of the parties that the property in which the demised premises are situated was at one time an evacuee property, Shop No. 2681, Sadar Thana Road, being part of the demised premises was allotted by the evacuee propert...
M.R. Dhawan and Co. Vs. Comissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi393; [1979]119ITR412(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) This is a consolidated reference by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Shri M. R. Dhawan for the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. A common question of law has been referred for the decision of this Court for all the above assessment years. The question reads as follows: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss claimed by the assessed in the transactions entered in the 'difference account' were rightly disallowed u/s 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'(2) It is indeed surprising that- the question which arises for our consideration in this case had not come up before this or any other court earlier. The assessed is a stock broker who is a member of the Delhi and other stock exchanges and, as the narration of facts below will show, the problem is so inherent in his business and of such a nature that it must have actually arisen in a number of c...
A.S. Bhatty Vs. K.L. Gambhir Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas312(Delhi); 14(1978)DLT20; 1978RLR438
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) An ex-parte order was passed on 4.11.77 in C.P. No. 15 of 1977. The present application has been moved under Order 9 rule 13 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code . Code of Civil Procedure and also u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside that ex-parte order. The allegation in the application is that the notices served on the applicants were incomplete in respect of the date of hearing and only later the applicants learnt of the disposal of the petition by inspection of the record. It is claimed that the petitioner had no informatioin regarding the contents of the petition because no copy of the petition was enclosed and hence Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, had been infringed. It is said that though the notice stated that a copy of the petition is enclosed, actually no copy was enclosed. It is claimed that the affidavit of service is not a valid affidavit and in not is the prescribed form and is not correct. It is claimed that the petition s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »