Delhi Court February 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.
Rajinder Singh Vs. Chakravarti, Malhotra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi48; 18(1980)DLT131
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) Two questions arise in this appeal for decision : (1)Can it be said that an applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of irregularity in the conduct of sale within the meaning of the proviso to Rule 92(3) of the Displaced Persons(Compensation& Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (the Rules), if it is found that he was in fact not willing to make a bid for an amount higher than was fetched by the highest bid at the auction which was held; (2)Whether the writ petitioners who were not parties to the sale proceedings have a locus standi to challenge an order confirming the sale which was held in those proceedings ?(2) The premises which are a part of the compensation pool constituted under section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 are occupied by the petitioners (respondents herein) as also by the appellant before us. An auction sale of the premises was first held on 12-9-1966. In the proclamation of sale the premises were wron...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. New India Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)223; [1980]123ITR68(Delhi)
D.R. Khanna, J.1. These appeals by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, are directed against the order dated June 17, 1977, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal whereby the acquisition of property bearing No. C-42, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, 1961, effected by the Competent Authority was quashed : 2. The background of the facts is that this property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 2,20,000 by its owner, Avtar Singh, to M/s. New India Construction Co. on December 22, 1974. The sale deed was registered on February 12, 1975. This property was constituted of the first floor with a covered area of 7,200 square feet. The transferee was, however, given the right to effect construction above the first floor. It was also made the co-lessee of the 400 square yards of perpetual lease land below over which the property stood. It was to pay Rs. 300 as ground rent for the same out of the total ground rent of Rs. 1,327.30 payable for the land. The floor was at...
Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central), New Delhi Vs. Dalmia Dadri Ceme ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: [1980]125ITR510(Delhi)
Khanna, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central), New Delhi, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the cost of the drier plant shown by the assessed at Rs. 7,70,000 was the actual cost of the asset for the purposes of allowance of development under section 33 and depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and it was not the cost as determined by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 3,60,000 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 8,679 claimed by the assessed as legal and court expenses was an admissible deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 46,718, being interest paid on income-tax arrears, and Rs...
Union of India Vs. Bharat Carpets Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT57(Del)
V.S. Deshpande. C.J.1. The respondent-company manufactures tufted carpets. The excise duty was levied on the said carpets manufactured by the petitioner under Item 21 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act on the ground that these carpets were covered by the following relevant description of the excisable article : 'Woollen Fabrics means, all varieties of fabrics manufactured wholly of wool or which contain 40 per cent, or more by weight of wool and includes blankets, lohis, rug, shawls and embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs.' 2. In pursuance of the orders levying the duty the respondent paid various amounts of duty. A summary of the treasury challans of duty paid by the respondent is at Annexure 'A' annexed to the plaint in Suit No. 142 of 1973. It is found that payments of which Seriall numbers are 1 to 55 were made up to 12-1-1970. The payments of Seriall numbers 56 to 183 were made from 24-1-1970 to 20-04-1972. 3. Suit No. 142 of 1973 was filed by the peti...
Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1286
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The question fur decision is whether an order in the nature of writ of prohibition can and should be issued by us in favor of the assessed-petitioner against the Income-tax Authorities respondents, restraining them from acting upon rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as it stood prior to its amendment made on 1-11-1977, in the assessment proceedings which are pending with the respondents against the petitioner. (2) The pendency of the assessment proceedings has been alleged by the petitioner for the assessment-year 1977-78 and has not been I denied by the respondents. The petitioner has also subsequently produced belore us the notice under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 9th August, 1979, addressed to the petitioner by the Income-tax Officer informing the petitioner that the said Officer proposes to tax the interest income accrued in the accounting year ending 30-9-1976 and that he proposes to tax the said income on accrual basis and also th...
R. Budhawar Vs. Maharaj Kumar M. Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1980
Reported in: 1980RLR463
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The respondent is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant. The house is three storeyed- The ground floor is occupied by the landlord himself while the first floor and Barsati in the second floor are let out to the petitioner. The premises were initially let out to M/s Bagai Motors which was dissolved in the year 1972. In 1973 the petitioner became the direct renant. The landlord sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal bona fide requirement under section 15(1)(e) the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. He stated that he belongs to the the princely family of Registhan and to begin with his family comprised himself, wife, a child and 3 servants Besides his mother and grand-mother and his parents-in-law also visit him off and on. Later on one more child was born to him. He, thereforee, found the accommodation in his possession to be insufficient which comprised only two bed rooms and one drawing cum-dining room one servant quarter besides kitchen etc. ...
Manohar Singh Vs. Kamla Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1980
Reported in: 1980RLR462
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent. By his order dated September 26, 1969, the Add! Rent Controller Delhi directed that, as per the agreement of the parties, the tenant shall pay Rs. 500. Go immediately and the balance by monthly Installments of Rs. 55 00 Along with the monthly rent payable in future. He also directed that this order would be deemed to be an order under sub.section (1) of S. 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and any non-compliance thereof will make the tenant liable to eviction. It appears that the tenant made these payments and escaped eviction. But later on he again defaulted in payment of rent and the landlord had to file another eviction petition out of which the present second appeal arises. The Addl, Rent Controller by his order dated February 21, 1974, refused to make an order under sub-section (1) of S. 15 because the tenant had already taken advantage of this provision once before and...
Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Harbans Lal Sharaf Alias Punjabi Se ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1980
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC82
1. Harbans Lal Sharaf alias Punjabi Seth of M/s. Harbans Lal Bansi Dhar, F-73, Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, was tried (sic) into India and smuggle Indian currency and foreign exchange out of India in contravention of the restrictions imposed under Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and for the substantive offence under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Shri S.C. Jain, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide his judgment dated January 21, 1975 acquitted Harbans Lal Sharaf alias Punjabi Seth (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) of the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 3,000 with the direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine. Feeling aggrieved by the acqui...
Asstt. Collector of Customs Vs. Harbans Lal Sharaf
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ618
1. Harbans Lal Sharaf alias Punjabi Seth of M/s. Harbans Lal Bansi Dhar, F-73, Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, was tried (sic) (for importation of contraband gold?) into India and smuggle Indian currency and foreign exchange out of India in contravention of the restrictions imposed under Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 and Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and for the substantive offence under Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Shri S. C. Jain, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide his judgment dated January 21, 1975 acquitted Harbans Lal Sharaf alias Punjabi Seth (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) of the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him under Section 167 '(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 3000/- with the direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in default of pay...
Narinder Kumar Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT302
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, vide his judgmendated July 30, 1974, has convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 in case of default of payment of fine, he has directed the appellant to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. (2) The appellant was challenged to stand his trial under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court found that as the prosecution had failed to prove the intention of the accused to murder the complainant, Jitender Pal Singh (Public Witness 9), the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, was not made out. Instead, it was held that as the prosecution had established that the appellant had caused grievous hurt to Jitender Pal Singh with a sharp edged weapon, the offence fell under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »