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.
All India Film Distributors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR358(Delhi)
1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessed-company, All India Film Distributors Private Ltd., derives income from the distribution of films. On March 29, 1954, the assessed entered into an agreement with M/s. V.P. Productions (hereinafter referred to as 'the producers'). Under the agreement the assessed agreed to advance to the producers a sum of Rs. 1,00,001 for the production of a picture to be known as 'Baghi Sipahi'. The amount was to be advanced in monthly Installments spread over between April, 1954, to October, 1954. The expectation of the parties was that the producers would be in a position to deliver the prints of the picture and the publicity material on or before October 15, 1954. In consideration of the advances thus made by the assessed, the producers agreed to give to the assessed the rights of exploitation, distribution and exhibition of the picture in what may be briefly described as the northern circuit. After the picture was rele...
Anil Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT238
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) The appellant. Anil Kumar along with Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Ram Pershad and Lal Chand son of Maria Ram, were tried by Shri B.B. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under Section 302 read ^ with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, for having caused injuries on Smt. Dhanwanti resulting in her death; under Section 324 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, for having caused hurt with a sharp edgid weapon on Kusum daughter of Shri Ladli Pershad as well asunder Section 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code for having causad simple injuries to Ladii Pershad with a blunt object. The Trial Court by its impugned judgment held that Section 34, Indian Penal Code was not attracted and consequently acquitted Shanti Dsvi. The Trial Court, however, held the appellant guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code accordingly sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant was also found to have committed an offence under Sscti...
K.R. Beri and Co. Vs. the Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi299; 17(1980)DLT365
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Market Act, 1958 against the order of the Assistant Registrar, Trade Marks, Delhi who refused the application of the appellant to register a trade mark. The trade-mark in question is 'FIVE 50' in class 12 in respect of the cycle bells. The registration was opposed by the respondent company on several grounds. The learned Assistant Registrar held that the said mark cannot be registered in the name of the appellant as it contravened Sections 11(a) and 12(1) of the Act. It was further held that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 12(3) of the Act and cannot claim registration on that basis.(2) At the hearing the counsel for the respondent referred to some evidence on the record and raised an additional objection for registration in terms of Section 8 of the Act. The appellant on the other hand also raised a new point that the respondent's trade-mark was 'ASIA-50' and that the appellant's m...
Lala Girdhari Lal Vs. Abdul Jalil and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT305
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This is a review application seeking review of my order dated October Ii, 1979, made in S.A.O. 142 of 1978. I had dismissed the second appeal and directed eviction of the tenants on the ground that the premises were let for commercial purposes and the statutory tenant having died, his heirs could not claim any right of occupation of the premises in view of the amended definition of 'a tenant' in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. By this review application, it is suggested that the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record so as to call for its review. (2) Apart from the question whether a review is permissible or not under the Delhi Rent Control Act, I do not think that there is any error of any kind in the impugned judgment. The learned Rent Control Tribunal had observed as follows : '...BEFOREI deal with the evidence certain admitted facts may benoticed. One Bhikari Lal was the tenant of these premises in 1942 who had started a Dhaba under the na...
Bikram Jit Nagar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT205; 1980(1)DRJ27; 1980RLR386
Rohatgi, J.(1) In this case the landlord let out premises constructed on plot taken on lease from President of India to the Union of India for housing a post office and the Land and Development Officer had expressly given his consent on behalf of the President of India for use of the building fora post office, the landlord's suit for eviction against Union of India under C.(K) was not maintainable. The fact that the deed of lease prohibited use of building for any purpose other than that of residence was immaterial.(2) The tenant is to be evicted under Clause (k) only when he uses the premises in a manner contrary to the conditions imposed on the landlord by the Government or the authorities mentioned in the clause while giving him a lease of the land and where he does not stop the misuse within such time as is specified by the controller in this behalf. When the Govt. itself is the tenant and the Govt. is a consenting party, the rent deed executed for and on behalf of the President of...
Krishan Kumar Madhok Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi164
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) The petitioner M/s. Krishan Kumar Madhok 'hereinafter called 'the contractor') entered into a contract with the Union of India for the construction of technical accommodation, officers mess, servant quarters, garages and static tanks at Delhi Cantonment. The contract was a 'lumpsum' contract. The amount agreed was Rs. 22,97,243.70. The contract was a time bound contract and phase Ii was to be completed by 12th January 1974 and phase I by 12th June 1974. The work was to commence by 13th March 1973, but it could not be commenced a? the possession of the site was given on May 16, 1973. The Garrison Engineer suspended the work on 14th September 1973 and the work of phase It was resumed on 6th November 1973 and that of phase I on March 1, 1974.(2) The contract contained an arbitration clause. Dispute arose between the parties and they were referred to the sole arbitration of Major General Surendra Singh Chhachhi. The parties filed their claims and counter-claims before...
Om Parkash and anr. Vs. Goodwill India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT372
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This appeal raises a question of law which, as at pressnt advissd, I find is not fully covered by precedent. Whether Section 8 or Section 20 of the Arbitration Act has to be availed by the first respondent in the circumstances of the case is the question to be decided. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these.(2) The first respondent hereinafter to be referred to as the Company, and the appellant and the second respondent hereinafter to be referred to as the hiring parties, entered into a hire-purchase agreement. One of the terms and conditions of the agreement, which constitutes the arbitration agreement between the parties, reads as under : 'Clause VI- (a) All disputes, differences, and or claims, arising out of this Hire Purchase Agreement, '-shall be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940) or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Clnit Ram Mittal, Advo...
Vijay Kumar Mundhra Vs. Globe Motors Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT308
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order of the Company Judge dated May 2, 1979, directing the official liquidator to accept the bid of Star Wires (India) Ltd. for the sale of the Steel Division of Globe Motors Ltd. (2) The appeal is by Shri V.K. Mundhra, who claims to be the largest share-holder and creditor of the Company. He is also the propounder of the scheme which failed to work satisfactorily resulting into the winding up order with regard to the Company being made on 15th of April 1979. Mr. G.L. Sanghi, Sr. Advocate, appearing for Mr. Mundhra has objected to the auction-sale. See Navlakha and sons v. Sri Ramanva Das and others, : [1970]3SCR1 . (I)that the steel unit should have been sold by public auction with wide publicity and not by limited auction, as was done by the Company Judge; (ii) that the limited auction has fetched less than the market price. The sale was, thereforee, contrary to the interest of the creditors and share-holders. (iii) that even othe...
Ram NaraIn Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT230
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts leading to this revision petition succinctly are that on 19th of April, 1975, a report was lodged by one Partap Singh at Police Station Najafgarh complaining that the petitioner had broken open the locks of the main gate as well as store-cum-office of his factory which he was running as a partner under the name and style of M/s Dawar Engineering Works, on plot No. 38B, Khasra Number 100, at village Matiala, the said plot having been taken on rent by him from the petitioner on 12th of December, 1973 on monthly rent of Rs 125.00 . He explained that after taking the plot in question on rent he constructed the factory and installed the machinery therein at a huge expenses. Further according to him the petitioner was found sitting inside the office of the factory and on enquiry by him with regard to the breaking of locks of the factory premises he retorted that he had done every thing and that the complainant was at liberty to do anything. A case under Section 448...
Hindustan Copper Ltd. Vs. Assam Bearing Agencies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi238; 17(1980)DLT279
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The petitioner, who is a defendant in the suit) had filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeking the stay of the suit on the ground that the contract between the parties provided for the disputes and differences arising out of that contract to be referred to arbitration. The learned trial court dismissed the application by its order dated May 26, 1979 mainly on the ground that the dispute or the difference, which was sought to be referred to arbitration, has not been alleged in the application and as such the suit could not be stayed. Reliance was placed on an authority of this Court reported in M/s. Pearl Hosiery Mills, Ludhiana v. Union of India and another, : AIR1979Delhi64 . The appeal filed by the defendant under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act challenging the said order was also dismissed. The first appellate Court while affirming the findings also held that as the dispute had not been specified in the application, the law laid d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »