Delhi Court November 1979 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1979 Page 1 of about 42 results (0.021 seconds)Kundan Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT470; 1980RLR759
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal raises the same perennial question of how to distinguish between an error within jurisdiction and an error outside jurisdiction which has defied any general answer and has to be considered on the facts of each case in the light of the law applicable thereto. (2) The Facts: The acquired evacuee property being house No. 111/395-396 (old), or VI/773/774 (new), Mehrauli, Delhi, is occupied by the appellant, Kundan Lal, as also by respondents 2 and 3, Moti Ram and his wife Rukmani Devi, in separate portions. The appellant, Kundan Lal occupies an area larger than the area occupied by respondents 2 and 3. The area held by the 'appellant) Kundan Lal, is an 'allotment' within the meaning of the definition given in Section 2(a) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which definition has been made applicable to the Displaced Persons (Gom, pensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, by Section 2(h) thereof. Smrirally, respondent No. 3, Ru...
Tag this Judgment!FabIndia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]130ITR143(Delhi)
1. The facts leading to this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, can be briefly stated. The assessed is a foreign incorporated company doing business in cloth. The assessment year in question is the year 1967-68 and the corresponding previous year is the year ended on December 31, 1966. The assessed was exporting cloth to England and America. It exported goods valued at 723 to England and $ 1,561 to the United States of America before 6th June, 1966. On that date, the Indian rupee was devalued. The result was that the company received in terms of rupees a sum of Rs. 26,757 as the price of the goods sold by it instead of Rs. 16,998 which it would have received had there been no devaluation. The assessed claimed before the ITO and the AAC and the Appellate Tribunal that the excess amount realised by it was a capital receipt, but the ITO treated the excess receipt as business profit. The Tribunal observed that the surplus or excess was an integral part of the sale transa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Printing Works
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]132ITR554(Delhi)
Ranganathan J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of Indian I.T. Act, 1922, which arose out of the assessment of Shambhu Nath, proprietor of Delhi Printing Works, for the assessment year 1961-62 for which the previous year was the calendar year 1960. The question which has been referred for our decision is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was entitled to a deductionof Rs. 20,182 out of the sum of Rs. 40,000 paid by him to Shri Sham Nath in computing the assessed's total income ?'2. The assessed, Shambhu Nath and his son, Sham Nath, were running and managing the Delhi Printing Works which originally belonged to one Chandu Lal and which was being run from April 1, 1939. In 1952 the assessed and his son purchased the business and started running it as a partnership concern with effect from January 1, 1953. A partnership deed was drawn up on September 12, 1953. The father was entitled to 2/3rds share in...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhman Dass and Jai Karan Kohli Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1980]124ITR706(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. Though these two references are made at the instance of two different assesseds, they raise a question which comes up for consideration in almost similar circumstances and it is, thereforee, convenient to dispose of both these references by a single judgment.2. Lachhman Dass, the assessed in ITR No. 6 of 1971, was an employee of Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, he received a sum of Rs. 9,500 from his employer company. The assessed's case was that he had suffered certain loss of movable assets in Pakistan at the time of partition to the extent of Rs. 15,430 and that he made a request to his employer to compensate him thereforee and that it was in partial grant of this request that the employer gave him a sum of Rs. 9,500. The question is whether this amount is liable to tax in the hands of the assessed as ' profits in lieu of salary '.3. In I.T.R. No. 18 of 1971, the assessed, Jai Karan Kohli, was an employ...
Tag this Judgment!United Trading and Construction Company Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT427
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The question for decision in the present appeal is whether the learned single judge has judicially exercised the discretion under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as contended by the appellant.(2) The answer to the question naturally depends upon the scope of the court's power under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Public Policy generally and the object of the Arbitration Act particularly, require that forum solemnly agreed upon by the parties should not be ousted unilaterally by a party to the agreement. The Civil Court, will, thereforee stay its hand and would not permit a party to denounce the private forum. The Civil Court will, thereforee, insist upon the parties to submit themselves to the arbitration proceedings.(3) The assumption in this cautious approach of the Civil Court is that there is an existing valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that the claim is preferred under the agreement to which the arbitration agreement applies.(4) There are c...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ved Sayal Kumar Ice Factory
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT211
O.N. Vohra and Anand Sarup, JJ.(1) Inspector, Department of Factories,Delhi Municipal Corporation, visited Kumar Ice Factory at 14, Upper BelaRoad;, Jamuna Ice Factory at 16, Upper Bela Road and Friends Ice Factoryat 18, Upper Bela Road, on 7/06/1969 and again on 10/06/1969 andfound that the ice factories were being run by electricity by Ved Sayal, DesRaj and Lochan Singh, respectively, in the absence of any license issued bythe Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation under Sections 416 and 417 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Accordingly, he prepared challans on the basis of which six complaints wereprepared and were filed before the Magistrate by Inspector Raghbir Saran,Office Inspector, Prosecution Department, Delhi Municipal Corporation, whowas competent to file the same by virtue of an order passed by the Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation, copy whereof is Ex. PE. The complaintsin respect of the first visit came up on June 11, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Vs. Management of Band Box (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT401; [1981(42)FLR276]; (1982)ILLJ362Del
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) This is an appeal under Clause X of the Letters patent against the judgment dated the 14th September, 1971 allowing the writ petition (CW500/71) filed by the management of Band Box Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the company), respondent No. 1 herein, seeking to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, whereby the appellant had been ordered to be reinstated.(2) The Lt. Governor, Delhi, by his order No. G-171/G-(2)/68-Lab, dated 29th November, 1968 referred the dispute that the appellant and two others had raised to the Tribunal in the following terms of reference : 'WHETHERS/Shri Suresh Kumar, Hari Ram and Gyan Chand are entitled to reinstatement? If so, what other directions are necessary in this regard.'(3) The Tribunal had held that the workman, Suresh Kumar, the appellant herein, was not paid the amount of compensation due to him on the day he was retrenched or discharged and as such there had been no compliance with the provisions of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi106; 17(1980)DLT136; 1980RLR402
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India highlights the desirability of social legislation to be brought about after careful consideration and not in a hurry. The social objective sought to be achieved by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 may be laudable but its implementation has been found difficult. This is primarily because of the legislation has made.(2) The petitioner is the owner of two plots of land each measuring about 224 sq. metres in Khasra No. 189/150, Garhi Extension, in the locality known as Sant Nagar in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Sant Nagar colony, it is common ground, is an unapproved colony where building activity is still not permissible. The petitioner also has a one-half share as an owner along with her husband in land measuring 526 sq. metres situated in Block 'E', Street No. 8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. This plot bears No. 10 and a dwelling unit is constructed on it. The Vasant Vihar Colony is a col...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sant Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]132ITR552(Delhi)
1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. The respondent Sant Singh, was called upon to file the return for the assessment year 1958-59 under Section 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The return should have been filed on or before October 3, 1958. The return was, however, filed on August 14, 1962. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on February 28, 1963. A demand of Rs. 15,739 was resulted.3. Simultaneously, with the passing of the assessment order, the ITO issued a notice to the assessed under Section 294 read with Section 271(1)(a) of theI.T. Act, 1961, calling upon the assessed to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed for the delay of three years and nine months in the filing of the return. Not satisfied with the Explanationn given by the assessed the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,869, being 50% of the tax due from the assessed. This order was confirmed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Sialkot Trading Co. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1980]45STC245(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, J.1. Whether hair-oil is not a cosmetic and is merely an article of toilet is the common question of law which comes up for determination in Civil Writ No. 344 of 1973 and S.T.R. No. 9 of 1977 and S.T.R. No. 10 of 1977.2. The assessment year in all the three cases is 1968-69. The petitioner in Civil Writ No. 344 of 1973 and the applicants in the two references carry on the trade of, inter alia, selling hair-oil and have been in this business for some time. They are also registered dealers within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi). Their turnover of sale of hair-oil has been taxed at the rate of 8 per cent by the Sales Tax Officer during the assessment for the year 1968-69 by treating hair-oil as a cosmetic falling under entry 17 of the First Schedule to the aforesaid Act. This entry reading 'cosmetics, but not including kum kum and soap', was included in the First Schedule to the Act with effect from 1st...
Tag this Judgment!