Delhi Court February 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 2 of about 50 results (0.023 seconds)Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. Har Prasad and Co. (P. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]129ITR388(Delhi)
1. This income-tax reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax relates to the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, in the case of M/s. Har Prasad & Co. P. Ltd. The question of law which has been referred for the decision of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no depreciation was disallowable under section 10 (4A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the assets provided in the residence of the managing director of the assessed-company ?' 2. M/s. Har Prasad & Co. (P.) Ltd., the assessed, were the managing agents of M/s. Escorts Ltd., a public limited company. THe assessed-company owned a house at Jor Bagh which was partly used as the guest house for the company's guests and partly as the residence of its managing director, Shri H. P. Nanda. This house was furnished with electrical apparatus, air-conditioner, fans, furniture and fixtures, cutlery and crockery. The question in this r...
Tag this Judgment!Sampuran Singh Vs. R. Copal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi7; 17(1980)DLT382; 1980RLR310
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This is a second appeal arising in the following circumstances. (2) The appellant is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant. The premises were let out on Februarys, 1956, at the rate of Rs. 120-00 per month. Both filed applications for fixation of standard rent. The tenant allowed his application to be dismissed in default. The Controller raised the rent to Rs. 140-00. Both went in appeal. The appeal of the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal and by its order dated November 14, 1968, it accepted the appeal of the landlord and fixed the standard rent of the premises in question at Rs. 200-00 per month with effect from May 27, 1961. The tenant filed an appeal in the High Court. Pending this appeal, an eviction petition was filed by the landlord under clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after the Act), on November 7, 1970. An application for a direction under Sub section (1) of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. R.N. Ghanerkar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT482
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge by which he rejected the objections of the Municipal Corporation and made the award a rule of Court and directed that a decree be passed in accordance with the Award. The respondent entered into a contract with the. appellant for carrying out the work of laying pipes, sewers between Barapur Nala and Cornwallis Road) New Delhi by acceptance of tender dated 31.12.1959. After having worked for some time disputes arose between the parties and a supplementary agreement dated 26.4.1962 was executed between the parties. By one of the clauses of agreement it was agreed that the rates for the remaining unfinished work shall be increased from the rates mentioned in the contract as shall be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the parties. Clause 2 provided that the Corporation shall pay to the contractors increases in the rates as may be allowed by the Arbitrator and all such payments in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Sushila Seth and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi244; 17(1980)DLT418
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (1) This is an appeal by the contractor who by an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act had claimed that the dispute between the contractor and the respondent. Government of Madhya Pradesh, be referred to arbitration. The application was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that Clause 25 of the contract designating the arbitrator was vague and it could not be ascertained from it as to which particular Chief Engineer was to be the arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. The Government had contended that Clause 25 of the contract did not amount to arbitration agreement at all. But that contention was negatived by the learned single Judge.(2) The undisputed facts out of which these questions for decision arose are briefly as below: The contract was entered into between the parties on 16.4.1957 by which the appellant was to do construction of cross drainage and cross-communication works or the right main canal gro...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Gold and Silver Thread Mills Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi173; 1980LabIC887
Leila Seth, J. (1) The petitioner-employer by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays a writ of certiorari to quash the certificate dated 23rd October, 1969 issued by the Labour Commissioner; Delhi, respondent No. 2 under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be referred to in brief as 'the Act'). The certificate is for an amount of Rs. 24156.22. In accordance with this certificate, the Collector, Delhi, respondent No. 4 is directed to recover the above mentioned amount from the petitioner, in the same manner, as arrears of land revenue and distribute it to the 137 workmen. A list of the names and individual amounts due to each workman is enclosed with the certificate. As stated in the certificate, the amount is due as bonus for the year 1968-69, in accordance with the settlement dated 1st June, 1968.(2) Mr. Rakesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner urged vehemently and at length, that the certificate dated 23rd October, 1969 was inv...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Singh Vs. Daljit Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT23; 1980RLR546
O.N. Vohra, J.(1) The facts that have given rise to this application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, briefly stated, are these. Jagdish Singh, plaintiff, sued for rendition of accounts alleging that there was partnership in between him and Daljit Singh, defendant, that the defendant was maintaining accounts and was controlling sales and purchases besides doing other acts. It was further alleged that the deed of dissolution was executed on July 1, 1977 subject to finalisation of accounts and inasmuch as the books of accounts were with the defendant and the kacha balance sheet which was prepared by the defendant was not accepted, the defendant was requested to settle the accounts but he went on postponing on one pretext or the other. In para 20 of the plaint, it was stated that the amount due to the plaintiff should be Rs. 80,000.00 and it was added that the exact amount cannot be ascertained till accounts were rendered by the defendant I...
Tag this Judgment!ScIndia Potteries Private Ltd. and Vs. Purolator India Ltd., Union of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi157; 17(1980)DLT358; 1980RLR271
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This appeal conies to us under Clause X of the Letters Patent, as applicable to this court, from a judgment dated March 19, 1979 given by a learned Single Judge of this Court.(2) This is a case which illustrates how in a private dispute between the parties Government can get unnecessarily involved. The appellants before us are M/s Scindia Potteries Private Ltd. and its Managing Director. Shri A.S. Goraya while the respondents are the Union of India, The General Manager, Delhi Telephones and M/s Purolator India Ltd. M/s Scindia Potteries Private Ltd, owns about 30 acres of land in the area commonly known as Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. This property of M/s Scindia Potteries Private Ltd. is known as the 'Scindia Potteries Area'. It is enclosed by a boundary wall. There are a number of sheds and buildings in the area. M/s Purolator India Ltd. are tenants in some of these buildings. In April, 1973 the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Vs. O.P. Khadria
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi237; 17(1980)DLT435; 1980(1)DRJ38; 1980RLR360
Avadh Behari, J. (1) This is a landlord's appeal from the order of the rent control tribunal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act.) (2) The landlord brought an application for eviction of the tenant under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Act. The tenant made an application for leave to contest the eviction case. Leave was given. After leave was granted the landlord made an application under section 15(2) requiring the controller to make an order against the tenant to deposit arrears of rent. The additional controller made the order under section 15(2). The tenant was required to deposit all arrears of rent and future rent month by month. From this order the tenant appealed to the tribunal. Following my decision in R. K. Parikh v. Uma Verma the tribunal held that an application under section 15(2) is not maintainable in the proceedings brought by the landlord under section 25B of the Act. He thereforee dismissed the application.Now the landlord appe...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chand Vs. Saroopi Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT486; 1980RLR338
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The facts of this appeal are that the landlady Smt. Saroopi Devi filed an elction petition against the appellant on November 24, 1972, on the ground of default in payment of rent due from February 1972 in spite of notice of demand dated September 1, 1972. The tenant appellant denied the title of the landlady and also that he was her tenant. He claimed that he was the tenant of her son Ram Chander and had paid rent to him up to July 31,1972. The statement of the tenant was recorded on February 22, 1973, when he admitted that Saroopi Devi was the owner of the property. But he still maintained that he was taken the premises on lease from her son. The Addl. Rent Controller passed an order on March 21, 1973, under S. 15(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter the Act), directing the appellant to deposit within one month the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 16.00 per month with effect from July 1, 1972, up to the end of the tenancy month proceeding the date of...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Sarju Prasad Jagdish Prasad
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi162; 17(1980)DLT511; 1980RLR503
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act and also rejected the prayer of the appellant to treat the said application as made under Sections 31 and 32 of the Arbitration Act. (2) The appellant filed an application under Section 33 of the Act in this court on the allegation that in response to the tender issued by it, the respondents offered to supply 444 M.T. of Dal Channa. This offer was said to have been accepted and the respondents were alleged to have been informed of the acceptance by a telegram which was followed by the acceptance of the tender No. 11/75/494/64-Pur Iii dated 29-4-1964 which contained the usual terms including the arbitration clause. The appellant alleged that the respondents filed the security deposit to carry out the terms and conditions of the contract. It was alleged that the respondents did not supply the contracted quantity and th...
Tag this Judgment!