Delhi Court December 1979 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.
Bal Kishen Das and ors. Vs. Sewa Nand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT560
Prakash Narain, J. (1) The appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal along with one Shri Bir Sain Jain were the non-evacuee co-owners having 2/ 3rd share in house property No. VJI/3033/5998-5610(New), G.B. Road, Delhi. The balance 1/3rd share of the said property was declared evacuee property and the property became 'composite property' within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 64 of 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). (2) Steps were taken to separate the evacuee interest and the appellants along with Shri Bir Sain Jain filed claims before the Competent Officer claiming their respective shares in the property. The valuation report received' by the Competent Officer fixed the value of the property at Rs. 44,160.00 . The claimants took time to file objections to the valuation report. Despite a number of opportunities having been granted, no objections were filed with the result that the Competent Officer by his order dated 5.5.1970 adopted - t...
ishwar Dass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)188; [1980]123ITR379(Delhi)
D.R. Khanna. J, 1. The facts giving rise to this reference lie in a narrow compass. Ishwar Dass, assessed, has been assessed in the status of an individual. He was appointed as managing director of the Sealand (India) Pvt. Ltd. by a resolution of the shareholders of the company inJanuary, 1954, for a period of 10 years. In this capacity he was allowed salary of Rs. 350 per month plus certain percentage of profits. 2. Subsequently, by a resolution passed in December, 1961, his services as managing director were terminated by the end of December, 1961. Ishwar Dass claimed that thereby he was put to loss as he would have, in the normal circumstances under the original resolution, continued to remain in service up to the month of January, 1964. The board of directors, thereforee, considering his submission allowed him a consolidated amount of Rs. 15,200 by way of compensation for the estimated loss due to his premature retirement. He was also allowed an amount of Rs. 6,300 as salary for th...
Kesho Ram Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ489
ORDERD.R. Khanna, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the Judgment dated 19-8-1977 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the conviction of Kesho Ram petitioner, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 31-1-1976, was maintained. The sentence of 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for six months as awarded by the trial court, was, however, reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Kesho Ram petitioner is a milk vendor and is operating his business from shop No. 26, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi. On 29-5-1974, at about 7.30 A. M. Food Inspector P. N. Ralhan visited the shop and found the petitioner selling milk. After disclosing his identity and giving notice to the petitioner, the Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of cow's milk for analysis out of t...
Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)177; [1980]123ITR354(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. There were two companies carrying on business in Jaipur known as M/s. Merchandise and Stores Ltd. and M/s. Rajputana General Dealers Ltd. By an order dated April 22, 1960, the Rajasthan High Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement bringing about the amalgamation of the above two companies with the Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ' the Birla company '). The clauses of the scheme were appended as a schedule to the order of the High Court which provided, inter alia, that all legal proceedings by or against the transferor companies could be continued by or against the Birla company and that the transferor companies would without winding up stand dissolved with effect from the date determined by the court. Since the Birla company had its registered office in Delhi within the then jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court, the above scheme had also to be approved by the Punjab High Court and the sanction of the Punjab High Cou...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. Rameshwar Lal Pahwa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)200; [1980]123ITR681(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act raises an interesting question regarding the construction of Section 24(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, read with Section 60 of the same Act.2. The assessed, Dr. Rameshwar Lal Pahwa, derived his income mainly from a house property situate at 20, Rajpur Road, Delhi. The annual letting value of the property from which he derived income was Rs. 11,115 and after deducting 1/2 of the municipal taxes paid and 1/6 of the annual value towards repairs the income from property worked out to Rs. 8,757. The assessed, however, declared the property income for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 (the relevant previous years being the financial years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66) at Rs. 5,457. This was because from the figure of Rs. 8,757 already referred to, the assessed claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 3,300 under Section 24(1)(iv) which at the relevant time allowed deduction ''where the property is subject to an ...
Cian Chand Vs. Urmila Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1979
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi98
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) On an application moved by Smt. Unnila Kumari under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the trial court awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 200 in her favor and against her husband, Gian Chand. It appears that although Gian Chand had been initially contesting those proceedings, he subsequently failed to make appearance and, thereforee, the court- decided the matter in his absence. According to Gian Chand he was unavoidably delayed at Chandigarh and had sent a telegram seeking adjournment. This, however, was not allowed. The trial was, thereforee, concluded, and after allowing a short adjournment and hearing arguments of the petitioner the aforesaid maintenance was awarded. The relevant order was dated 29th November, 1976.(2) Against this order Gian Chand moved an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge on 4th January, 1977. Notice thereof was directed to be issued tO Smt. Urmila for 4th February, 1977. It is not clear from the record as to what h...
Prem Lata Vs. Manmohanchawla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi765
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a wife's appeal from the decree of divorce of the Additional District Judge dated April 2,1979. (2) The appellant Prem Lata was married to the respondent Man Mohan Chawla on January 30, 1973. They lived together till 1975. During this period a child was born to them. (3) The wife left the matrimonial home. She went to her parents and started living with them. The husband brought a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. On September 29, 1976 the court passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. But they did not live together. One year passed. They remained separate as before. The husband then brought a petition for divorce under section 13(l-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act) on 3rd October, 1977. The Additional District Judge granted a. decree of divorce. From his decree the wife appeals to this court. (4) The wife defended the divorce petition. Her main defense was that she lived with the husband during the period from 26th Dec...
Shri Suraj Parkash Chhabra Vs. Shri Gobind Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT498
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 39(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal under appeal, the only point decided against the appellant was with regard to the service of notice and the appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller was allowed on a finding that the service of the requisite notice had not been proved. Thus the only point before me is whether this finding of the learned Rent Control Tribunal can and needs to be set aside. No other point arises or is urged.2. On behalf of the appellant the attention of the learned Rent Controller was drawn to Ex. A3, copy of the notice dated 10th April, 1961 and Ex. A4 the postal receipt in respect of the registration of the dispatch of the notice and Ex. A5 being the A. D. form in respect of the said notice and argued that service of the notice should be presumed to have been made in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act...
Ram Singh Vs. the State and Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT209
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. fora period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. In appeal the said conviction and sentence having been upheld, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was released on bail. (2) Bawa Gurcharan Singh, learned Counsel has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner on facts. He has, however, urged that as the prosecution commenced in 1975, prior to the introduction Of Section 20AA, the 'benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, should be given to the petitioner as 'he was only a boy of 20 years and four months Of age at the time of commission of the offence. This is the only point which arises for consideration in this petition. (3) The Trial Court had observed that the...
Hindustan Motors Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1979
Reported in: 1980CENCUS156D; 1980(6)ELT423(Del)
ORDER1. This writ petition raises the question as to whether dumpers are `motor vehicles' within the meaning of Item 34 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act) and are accordingly liable to excise duty. 2. Hindustan Motors Ltd., the petitioner, manufacture and sell what are called 'Rear Dumpers'. This dumpers is an earthmoving equipment and is used to hal large quantities of soil, rock or mineral ores within the area of a civil construction project or a mining project. The normal speed of the dumpers is 18 K. Miles per hour. The dumpers is a very heavy equipment with a tare weight of approximately 19.5 M. tonnes and can carry loads up to 25 tonnes. It is designed in operate on sought terrain. For this purpose it is sturdily built to withstand any rough handling and has a very high ground clearance in order to operate on uneven surface. Its selling price in 1975, when the writ was filed, was approximately Rs. 9 lakhs exclusive of all taxes. 3. Now exerc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »