Delhi Court December 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.
S.R. Dutta Vs. Chunni Lal Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ43; ILR1981Delhi58; 1981RLR172
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenant challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd April, 1980 confirming the order of eviction dated 11th October, 1979 passed by the Controller, Delhi under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The respondent-landlord claimed eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the suit premises for his personal bona fide necessity and for bona fide need of his married daughter Smt. Kamlesh Bhatia for whose benefit he was holding the premises. It is desirable to quote the exact plea taken by the respondent in para 18(a) of the eviction application : 'THE eviction of the tenant-respondent is sought on the ground that the petitioner requires the premises for his own personal bona fide necessity and for the bona fide need of Smt. Kamlesh Bhatia, wife of Shri Prakash Narayan, the petitioner's daughter for whose benefi...
Satya Prakash and ors. Vs. Balram Bhasin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1980
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT1; 1981RLR268
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the older of the Rent Control Tribunal allowing the appeal of the tenant who was sought to be evicted in execution of a conditional eviction order passed against him. Briefly stated the facts of the case are these. (2) The respondent is a tenant under the appellant of certain premises in Connaught Circus, New Delhi on a rent of Rs. 100.00 per month. These premises are in a building constructed over a plot of land which is on lease from the President of India to the appellant and the use of the building is controlled by the terms of the lease. One of the terms of the lease admittedly is that the ground floor of the building in Connaught Circus will be used for commercial purposes and the first and the second floors will be used for residential purposes. The respondent is in occupation of the premises which are to be used for residential purposes. On the ground that the respondent was using the premises in his possession in vi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Banwari Lal and Sons Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: [1982]137ITR91(Delhi)
Goswamy, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, the following questions of law have been referred for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the assessed 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not converting provisions of section 147(a) into provisions of section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessed is a limited company. It owned a building known as Radha Krishan Bhawan, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The building was let out to the American Embassy for some years and the assessed was charging a rent of Rs. 3,212.50 per month. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, the American Embassy vacated the buil...
Suraj Mal Vs. the State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC63(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. Shri Suraj Mal as sole proprietor of M/s. Varshney Hosiery Factory, situated at 1295, Phatak Habash Khan, Delhi, entered into a partnership with one Shri Abdul Ghani with effect from 7th July, 1955. He was holding sales tax registration certificate No. 11765 dated 31st October, 1951. The new partnership was to carry on business in bidi, cigarettes and cigars; intimation of this was given to the sales tax department on 4th August, 1952. A dissolution deed was drawn up between the partners on 23rd August, 1952, and the change in constitution was intimated to the sales tax department. As a result of the dissolution, the registration certificate was to go to Shri Abdul Ghani, the other partner, who was authorised to transfer it to the name of M/s. S. A. Ghani. A joint statement was made before the Sales Tax Officer on 8th October, 1952, stating that the petitioner would be jointly and severally responsible for payment of tax only up to 23rd August, 1952, and after that Shri Abd...
Sawhney Rubber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: [1981]47STC265(Delhi)
Goswamy, J.1. At the instance of the assessed, M/s. Sawhney Rubber Industries, the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Delhi, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the goods mentioned in column 3(a) of the certificate of registration for purposes of manufacture could be deleted from the said certificate on the ground they were sent outside the Union Territory of Delhi for processing of compound prepared by mixing raw rubber with china-clay and burada ?' 2. The assessed was a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as applied to the Union Territory of Delhi. The certificate of registration was issued to the assessed and in column 3(a) of that certificate the following items were specified for the purpose of manufacture : (1) raw materials, (2) Chemicals, (3) oils, (4) solvent oils, (5) tyre cord, (6) bead wire, (7) solder (lead and tin) and (8) iron sheets. The assessed...
Precision Steel and Engineering Works and anr. Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT420; 1981RLR679
Prakash Narain, A.C.J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order of Rent Controller, Delhi, passed on January 23, 1980, declining leave to defend to the petitioner, a tenant in the premises in question, against whom a petition for eviction had been filed by the respondent under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. (2) It seems the respondent was inducted into the premises in question, being the front portion of a building at B-44, Greater Kailash, New Delhi on the basis of what is called a license-deed. Clause (6) of the said license Deed reads as under : 'THE Licensees shall use the said premises for the residence of their Directors, partners and officers. The Licensees will, however, be free to use the said premises in part or in full also for office purpose provided the rules of the local authorities so permit and in such an event the Licensees shall pay to the owners any in...
In Re: Telesound India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas926(Delhi)
1. Telesound (India) Ltd., for short, 'the transferor-company', was incorporated in the year 1966, inter alia, for the manufacture and sale of radio-receivers, record-players, record-changers, tape-recorders, valves and commercial apparatus. The subscribed and paid up capital of the company was Rs. 99,45,455 at all material times. It was initially an Indo-German collaboration and following the reverses suffered by it and on heavy losses, the German collaborator withdrew and it became a wholly owned Indian company in 1973 but was unable to recover and was compelled to lay off the workers by 1976. By the year 1976, the liabilities of the company exceeded its assets, the accumulated losses exceeded the share capital and the capital reserves, the industrial activity of the company came to a halt and the company was unable to pay its creditors, which included, secured creditors, consisting of financial institutions and banks, unsecured creditors, such as, trade creditors, landlords and larg...
Rajbans Behari Lal and ors. Vs. the Additional Assistant Controller of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT225; [1982]134ITR619(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.(1) This Estate Duty reference, at the instance of the accountable persons, has been referred to us for our opinion by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (to be referred to in brief as 'the Act'). The question of law is : 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 6067 shares of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited were deemed to pass on the death of the deceased under Section 13 of the Estate Duty Act?' (2) Mrs. Nand Rani Mathur has three sons Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, Mr. Rajbans Behari Lal and Mr. Gopal Behari Lal. She also owned 6067 shares of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Limited. (3) In November, 1971 she divided these shares equally into three blocks of 2022 shares each and got each block registered jointly in the name of herself and one of her sons. The remaining extra share was, however, registered jointly in her name and that of her youngst son. About eight months thereafter, Mrs. Nand Rani Mathu...
Sudhir Sareen Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle Xvii, New Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1980
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT29; ILR1981Delhi74; [1981]128ITR445(Delhi)
S.D. Wad, J.1. A short question for decision in this petition is whether an ITO acting s. 144B, is empowered to confront an assessed with more than one proposed draft orders of assessment, each time raising the amount of assessment or whether he can do the said exercise only once. The petitioner's contention is that s. 144B restricts the power of the ITO only to one draft order of assessment and not more. He further contends that any other interpretation would expose an assessed to unjustified harassment. 2. Section 144B read as follows : '144B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where, in an assessment to be made under sub-section (3) of section 143, the Income-tax Officer proposes to make any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the assessed and the amount of such variation exceeds the amount fixed by the Board under sub-section (6), the Income-tax Officer shall, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment (h...
M.D. Oswal Hosiery Vs. Swami Krishna Nand Govinda Nand Bhagwat Dham
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1980
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ122
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 16th May, 1980 confirming the order of the Additional Controller dated 5/4/1980 dismissing the objections of the appellant-tenant who claims that the eviction order dated 24/3/1973 based on a compromise between the parties is a nullity and as such not executable. The counsel submits that there was no satisfaction of the Controller for the passing of the order of eviction against the appellant under Section 22 of the Act, that no material was available on record on the basis of which the Controller could have passed the order of eviction. His submission is that the respondent-landlord has never been a public institution and that respondent never claimed or required the suit premises for the furtherance of its activities. His next objection is that no opportunity was given to him t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›