Delhi Court January 1980 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.
Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR239(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. It is a very short question that arises in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of M/s. Bharat Carbon & Ribbon ., New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed'). During the previous year which ended on December 31, 1962, relevant for the assessment year 1963-64, the assessed increased its authorised capital from rupees twenty-five lakhs to rupees one crore and for doing so it paid registration fees of Rs. 5,625. The ITO disallowed the above amount but on appeal the AAC allowed the claim of the assessed for deduction of this expenditure. However, on a further appeal by the ITO, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the amount had been spent for the purpose of profit making apparatus and not for the purpose of making profit and was, thereforee, expenditure of capital nature. 2. At the request of the assessed, the following question of law has been referred to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of t...
Omvik Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi169
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) M/S. Omvik Electronics (here in after referred to as a 'Contractor') which is a private limited company mcorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 4/276, Parbati Bagia Road, Kanpur. entered into a contract dated 5th November, 1976 with Union of India through the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi for supply of 440651 shoulders and 495196 collars. According to the agreement the contractor was to be paid 95% of the price against the supply of goods from time to time and the balance of 5% was to be paid on supply of the entire quantity. Office of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals withheld a sum of Rs. 73,946.00 from the bill of the petitioner against the 95% of the payment due to alleged reduction in rates and did not pay the balance 5% although the whole of the contracted shoulders and collars had been supplied. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the withholding of the afore- said paym...
J.M.A. Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi200; 17(1980)DLT476
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) It is high time the administrative authorities exercising powers under statutory provisions should realise that whether they are issuing a show cause notice why a certain action should not be taken or are communicating the reasons for decisions it is not sufficient merely to recite the language of the statutory provisions but it is also necessary that the actual facts on which action is proposed to be taken or on which the decision is based should also be stated or indicated. The truth of this observation is borne out by this case in relation to section 49(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Ad. 1958 (The Act), and Rule 86 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. (2) The facts out of which the question arose may be briefly stated. The Indian company, petitioner No. 1, and the foreign company, petitioner No. 2, entered into a collaboration agreement which was approved by the Government of India from 1961 to 1971 only. The proprietory trade mark 'HELLA' o...
Custodian of Evacuee Property Vs. Qabool Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi183; 17(1980)DLT515; 1980RLR500
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The property in question in this Letterg Patent Appeal being property No. XII/6556 to 6572/4613 situated in Mughal- pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, was mortgaged by one Mohd. Ismail, respondent No. 9. At the instance of the mortgagee, in whose favor the mortgage decree had been passed, the said property was put to auction. The property in question was auctioned on 5th December, 1951 and Qabool Singh (original respondent No. 1) and Raghunath Das (original respondent No. 2) were declared the joint-purchasers. The sale in their favor was confirmed by an order of the court dated 19th January, 1952. It is an admitted fact that Raghunath Das transferred all his rights, title and interest as an auction- purchaser in favor of Qabool Singh. (2) The aforesaid property in question was in occupation of tenants. It appears that symbolic possession of the same was given to Qabool Singh on 28th February, 1952 under order 21 rule 96 Civil Procedure Code A few years after obtaining the sym...
Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. D.D. Bhargava
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT251
Leila Seth, J. (1) This Criminal revisiopetition is directed against the Orders dated 12th January, 1973 and 23rd March, 1974 passed by the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, respectively, dismissing the application of the petitioner and holding that the sanction accorded was valid. (2) The controversy is concerning the consent to initiate the proceedings, granted by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The point urged is, that it was issued without application of mind and as such is invalid. (3) The brief facts are that a complaint was filed in 1962 by Mr. D.D. Bhargava, Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports against the petitioner and four others. The offences alleged were under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947; as also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imp...
State of Punjab Vs. Grindlays Bank Ltd. and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT566; 1980RLR490
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge by which he held that the respondent bank was entitled to precedence as a secured creditor and was entitled to draw the entire amount, of Rs. 6,75,000.00 being the sale proceeds of Jullundur property in partial discharge of the amounts due to the bank under the equitable mortgage. (2) M/S. Globe Motors Ltd. created a mortgage by depositing of title deeds relating to two properties one at Jullundur and the other at Jhandewalan, New Delhi to the extent of Rs. 40,00,000 on 7.2.77. This charge was duly registered with the Registrar of Companies under Section 125 of the Companies Act. On 23.8.1969 the bank wrote to Mr. Mundra who had propounded a scheme informing him that in their books a sum of about Rs. 57 lakhs and over was due and suggesting that a board resolution would be required for the acknowledgement of the liabilities then due to the bank This was again followed by another letter of 14.4.1970 ...
Jyoti Prakash Mitter Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi371
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The plaintiff was appointed an additional Judge of tile High Court at Calcutta on February Ii, 1949 and a permanent Judge of the said court on 21st January, 1950. He gave his date of birth as 27th December, 1904. After the plaintiff had been in office for about ten years the Home Minister, Government of India purported to reopen the question of his age on the ground of discrepancy between the age as stated in his certificate for the metriculate Examination and the age given by him. The Government of India held the plaintiff's correct date of birth to be 27th December, 1901. This determination opened the gates of the litigation between the plaintiff and the Government. The plaintiff filed petition in the circuit bench of the Punjab High Court but it was dismissed as not maintainable. The plaintiff then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Calcutta. It was heard by a Special Bench of five judges and his petition was dismissed by ...
Sham Lal Dhingra Vs. Jaswant Kaur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi171; 17(1980)DLT456; 1980(1)DRJ28; 1980RLR362
Prakash Narain, J.(1) A very anomalous situation which sometimes arises in courts is whether an innocent party dragged into litigation should on account of technicalities of law be deprived of his rights or fruits of labour.(2) Shop No. 1/B-7, Model Town, Delhi, is owned by one Jaswant Kaur. Gurjoginder Singh was a tenant under her in that shop. On February 19, 1971, Jaswant Kaur filed a petition for eviction of the tenant, Gurjoginder Singh, on the ground of non-payment of rent. An order for eviction was passed ex parte on July 22, 1971, and Jaswant Kaur took possession of the shop in execution of the warrant of possession in October, 1971. On October 26/27, 1971, Gurjoginder Singh moved an application under 0.9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code . for setting aside of the ex parte order of eviction against him. Notice of this application was issued to Jaswant Kaur. In the meanwhile on April 20, 1973, Jaswant Kaur entered into an agreement of tenancy with Sham Lal Dhingra, appellant, to le...
Raghubir Singh Vs. the Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT539
S.S. Chadha, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner and pending before Shri N.N. Chopra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Central District, Delhi.2. The petitioner, after graduating from the Punjab University, joined the Delhi Police directly as Sub Inspector on 17th October, 1969. The petitioner was attached to Patel Nagar Police Station with effect from 19th December, 1971. The allegations against the petitioner are contained in the affidavit of Shri Nikhil Kumar, Superintendent of Police in opposition to the writ petition and I may do it well to reproduce the same :(i) 'The petitioner Sub-Inspector Raghubir Singh No. D. 849 (under suspension) while posted at Police Station Patel Nagar on the relevant day was entrusted with the investigation of a case F. I. R. No. 538/72 under Section 379 I. P. C. registered against M/...
inderjit Sehdev Vs. Ram Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi97; 18(1980)DLT82; 1980RLR410
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) In this revision petition the petitioner challengesthe order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing leave to the defendant todefend the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3,100.00. The suit hadbeen filed under 0. 37 of the Civil P.C. on the plea that the defendant issueda cheque for Rs. 3000.00 on 7/07/1978, in full and final settlement to theplaintiff who is a building contractor, after the completion of the house of thedefendant which cheque, on presentation on 15/07/1978 was dishonouredand as per the endorsement by the bank it was referred to the drawer. Thedefense taken on merits by the defendant in his application was that on 7/07/1978 when the cheque in question was issued to the plaintiff he had still tocomplete the building work to the tune of about Rs. 4,000.00. The said chequefor Rs. 30CO.00 had been paid on account by the defendant to the plaintiff onthe undertaking that the unfinished work would be completed by 15/07/1978 and that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »