Delhi Court November 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 2 of about 23 results (0.021 seconds)Pritam Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Madan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT132
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal under order 43 rule I (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'the Act') challenging the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellants' application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code for temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings. The respondents carry on business at Delhi while the appellants carry on business at Malout Mandi, District Faridk(2) Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the order of the trial court mainly on two grounds : (i) there is no dispute between the parties and hence there can be no arbitration and (ii) that the arbitration reference by the respondents by filing the claim on 15th May, 1979 before the association is invalid as the same has been filed without the consent of the appellant and without any notice to them. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there cann...
Tag this Judgment!Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi102; [1982]137ITR97(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the two orders dated September Ii, 1969 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance; one of the orders directs the retrospective cancellation of the approval of the long- term loans bearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the purpose of purchase of plant and machinery raised/debt incurred abroad by Renusagar Power Co. Ltd., Renukoot, accorded earlier in the exemption orders under Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued on September 3, 1965 and June 7, 1967 and the other order refuses to accord approval of the rate of interest on the long- term loans for the purchase of structural steel and additional spares and accessories raised/debt incurred abroad by Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. under Section 10(15))(iv)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. FACTSnecessary for the appreciation of the points raised are these. In October and November, 1963 negotiation...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Ram Vs. Same Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi165; 19(1981)DLT378
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood prior to its amendment by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. The solitary, question for decision is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is within time. The appellant executed a pronote for Rs. 1300.00 on 5th January 1963 in favor of the respondent and promised to pay the amount with interest at 15 per Mensem on demand. The amount was not paid. The plaintiff also did not file the suit within three years from the date of the pronote. On 10th July, 1966 the defendant made the following endorsement on the back of the pronote itself: 'ISpronote ko main manzoor karta hoota ki yeh agle teen saal ke liye theek hai' ITStranslation would read as under : 'I accept this pronote and it is valid for the next three years.' The plaintiff's contention is that this endorsement is not a mere acknowledgment but a .promise to pay in writing within the meaning of Clause (3) o...
Tag this Judgment!Nematullah Vs. Mohd. Zikriya
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT55; 1981(2)DRJ22
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 29/5/1979. By the said judgment the Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller allowing petition of the landlord for the eviction of the appellant vide order dated 1/4/1976. The Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. (2) Mr. Ishwar Sahai, Learned Counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection that the appeal is barred by time. As I have sataed earlier, the judgment under appeal was delivered on 29/5/1979. The appellant made an application for a certified copy of the judgment of the Tribunal on 30/5/1979 and the copy was ready on 5/6/1979. The appellant had also filed an application on 30/5/1979 for obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 1/4/1976 passed by the Additional Controller. This certified ...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Kansal Vs. Waryam Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT60
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is a revision petition by the tenant under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') challenging the order dated 28th January, 1978 passed by the Additional Controller. By the impugned order the Controller dismissed the application for leave to contest and passed the eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The respondent Waryam Singh, filed a petition for eviction of the Petitioner, J. B. Kansal, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act. The summons as prescribed by the Third Schedule of the Act was served upon the tenant on 14th March, 1977. He made an application for leave to contest supported by an affidavit on 21st March, 1977. This affidavit contains the verification in the following form : 'VERIFICATION: Verified at Delhi this 21st day of March, 1977 that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and correct to my belief'.At the time of arguments before the Additional Controlle...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others Vs. V.S. Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi428
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. 1. The single question in this appeal is whether the provisions of s. 288(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), which empower the Commissioner of Income-tax to disqualify a practitioner are retrospective in operation. Has the power disbarment been validly exercised in the case of the respondent to this appeal The material facts on which the decision has turned are as follows : The respondent is an advocate. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 1958-59 on September 3, 1958. On assessment it was found that he had concealed his income. A penalty of Rs. 3,000 was imposed on him by order dated March 12, 1965. This was eventually confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The Additional Income-tax Commissioner, Bhopal, made an order under s. 288(4) of the act on February 26, 1971, disqualifying the respondent from representing an assessed before the I.T. authorities for a period of two years. The respondent appealed to the Central Board of D...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, New ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]128ITR543(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The single question in this appeal is whether the provisions of section 288(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (Act of 1961) which empower the Commissioner of Income Tax to disqualify a practitioner are retrospective in operation. Has the power of disbarment been validity exercised in the case of respondent to this appeal The material facts on which the decision has turned are as follows. (2) The respondent is an advocate. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 1958-59 on September 3, 1958. .On assessment it was found that he had concealed his income. A penalty of Rs. 3,000 was imposed on him by order dated March 12, 1965. This was eventually confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (3) The Additional Income Tax Commissioner. Bhopal made an order -under section 288(4) of the Act on February 26, 1971, disqualifying the respondent from representing an assesses before the income-tax authorities for a period of two years. The respondent appea...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Devi Dalmia Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circ ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]128ITR210(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. 1. These are four appeals from the order of a learned single judge dated October 31, 1973. At the conclusion of the hearing we announced our decision. We dismissed those appeals. Now we give our reasons. 2. The appellant, Shrimati Krishna Devi Dalmia, is the assessed. She filed income-tax returns for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62. She had acquired a large number of shares in certain companies. She sold these shares and realised amounts far in excess of what she had paid for them. To begin with, she took the stand that the excess amount was not liable to tax. But this contention was soon given up. Then she took the position, and this was her case throughout, that this amount would be liable to tax as capital gains as capital gains tax levy had been introduced from 1st April, 1956, in the income-tax law. A provisional assessment under s. 23B of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was made and she paid the amount of capital gains tax. 3. In due course the ITO mad...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. R. Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1982]135ITR346(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. 1. This is a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (the Act), by the Commissioner of Income-tax. 2. The assessed, Shri R. Dalmia, was holding 2,50,000 shares of Jaipur Udyog Ltd. in the name of his nominee, Shri S. N. Dudani, since 1955. He was the real owner of these shares. By an agreement date May 21, 1955, the assessed agreed to purchase certain properties of the value of Rs. 49,25,000 from Bharat Insurance Company Ltd. (BIC). As a security for the purchase price he deposited with BIC blank transfer deeds with share certificates. The agreement was that he will make the payment of the purchase price in Installments together with interest. Clause (6) of the agreement provided that so long as the Installments of the purchase price and interest and other moneys payable by the assessed to BIC under the agreement are duly and regularly paid and the assessed otherwise observes and performs all other terms and conditions of the agreement to be obser...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1981CriLJ928; 19(1981)DLT212
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This is a petition moved by the complainantSuresh Kumar under sub-section (6) of s. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transfer of the case State v. Om Pal Singhand others, under Ss. 364, 365, 342, 506, T.P.C., from the court ofShri P. K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, to some other competentcourt.(2) Upon an F.I.R. lodged with the A. C. Police (Crime) on 21/08/1978, at 10.45 P.M., a case was instituted against the accusedrespondents on the allegations that on 20/08/1978, at about10.30 P.M. in the night, the complainant Suresh Kumar and one MissSushma Chaudhary were going in a car No. Brp 651 towards JamunaBazar within the jurisdiction of P. S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Theywere invested by about ten-eleven persons who emerged out of twotaxis and drove them away to a big building on the roadside. Theywere beaten, detained and forced to write some letters and pose forphotographs. The identity of only three abductors could be established.They were, (...
Tag this Judgment!