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.
Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR434(Delhi)
1. This is an income-tax reference at the instance of the Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. which has subsequently been merged into the Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. The reference relates to the assessment year 1953-54. The questions which have been referred to this court are the following : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to full benefit of extra shift allowance 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessed-company is entitled to claim the share of loss from the unregistered firm in which it was a partner to be set off against other business income of the assessed 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 out of the establishment and management expenses alleged to be pertaining to the affairs of M/s. Agricultural Company is valid in law and 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 19,715 out of legal expenses is val...
J.N. Sharma and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: [1980]123ITR90(Delhi)
Khanna, J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, J. N. Sharma & Sons, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has referred under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the following question for opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest of Rs. 55,515 payable to the Government could be treated as a deductible revenue of the assessed ?' 2. The assessment year involved was 1961-62, the relevant previous year which ended on December 31, 1960. The assessed has been a registered firm carrying on the business of manufacturing lanterns, stoves, glass lamp holder, radio chassis, etc. 3. The controversy pertains to the amount of Rs. 55,515 which had been shown by the assessed in its balance-sheet as provision made towards interest accrued. This concerned the immovable property consisting of land and building where the assessed was operating its factory. It was held on lease from 1955 from the Faridabad Development Board which was ...
Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)194; [1980]123ITR287(Delhi)
Khanna, J. 1. These are three sets of income-tax references submitted in a consolidated form by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C') in compliance with the directions of this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. One set pertains to the assessment of the Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., and is for assessment years 1948-49 to 1950-51. In the second set, the assessed is the Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., and concerns assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1951-52. The third set involves only one assessment year, viz., 1947-48, and the assessed here is the Punjab Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. 2. Amongst these assessed, the Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., and the Punjab Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., maintained accounting years which ended every year on October . The accounting years of the Basti Sugar Mills ended on April 30, of every year. 3. These three companies, as their names suggest, have been carrying on the business of manufacturer and sale of sugar. They were cont...
Bhupender Kamal Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi121; 18(1980)DLT129
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks setting aside of the judgment passed on April 4, 1979 by Shri R. N. Jindal, Subordinate Judge I Glass, Delhi dismissing the petitioners' suit on the ground that it was not maintainable.(2) The petitioners had filed the suit for permanent injuction praying that the New Delhi Municipal Committee (respondent herein) be restrained from recovering the suit amount from them. Along with the suit, the petitioners had made an application for the grant of an ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules I and 2 of the Code. The said application was dismissed and, thereforee, the disputed amount was deposited by the petitioners with the respondent. (3) After the filing of the written statement certain issues were framed on May 31,1978. It is the admitted case of the parties before me that issue No. 3 was as follows : 'HASthe suit become infructuous by payment of the tax due?'(4) On an application m...
Nasur-ud-dIn Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi9; ILR1980Delhi1047
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The decision of this appeal turns upon the true distinction between the substantive part of sub-section (3) of section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act), and the relevant part of the proviso thereto. Since they are to be carefully read, they are reproduced below: 'THEprovisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits : 'Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in section 57 for the grant or countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one State are required to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of another State or the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States. . . 'The petitioner-appellant is the holder of an inter-State stage carriage permit No. 1627 to ply between Ghaziabad, U.P., and Delhi issued by the Regional...
Gian Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT349
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The appellant before us had filed a writ petition for quashing the order dated 11th January, 1963 passed by Mr. Gulab L. Ajwani, Additional Settlement Commissioner, (with delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner) purporting to reject the claim of the appellant for allotment of agricultural land in Delhi, on the ground that the appellant was of Punjabi extraction (an agriculturist from Sindh as also West Punjab now in Pakistan), and was not entitled to allotment of agricultural land non the basis of a verified claim in Delhi under rule 64 (a) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Reha.bilitation) Rules, 1955. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal. Rule 64 is as below : 'Any land owner whose claim was registered under the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Claims) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act Viii of 1948) or under the Patiala Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance, 2004 B.K. (Ordinance No. X of 2...
Krishna Devi Nigam and ors. Vs. Shyam Babu Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi165; 17(1980)DLT344; 1980(1)DRJ33; 1980RLR215
Sachar, J.(1) Does the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (Hereinafter to be called the Slum Areas Act) continue to apply to an application brought under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called the Rent Act) after the amendmedts made in the Rent Act incorporating amongst others Chapter Iiia by means of Act 18i of 1976 is the question that has been referred to a larger bench for decision, because of the different views expressed by the learned single Judges of this court.(2) Clauses (a) to (e) of Proviso to sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Rent Act provide grounds on which an application for recovery of possession of any premises can be made by the landlord. Clause (e) permits an application for recovery of possession to be made on the ground that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependant on him. Prior to th...
A.R. Josri Vs. the State Bank of India, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT518
Prakash Narain, J. (1) The main question which arises for determination is whether employees of the State Bank of India entitled to involve the principles of natural justice and claim that reasonable opportunity should be granted to them before their services are terminated by way of punishment. A subsidiary question that arises is the interpretation to be put on the relevant rules in this case known as the State Bank of India (Sub-Accountams and Head Cashiers) Service Rules. (2) The appellant was employed by the erstwhile Imperial Bank of India as a Cashier and Teller on December 24, 1951. He was . confirmed in that post with effect from January 1, 1953. The State Bank of India Act, 1955 was passed by the Parliament with intent. inter alia, to transfer to the State Bank of India the undertaking of the Imperial Bank of India. The services of the existing officers and employees of the Imperial Bank of India stood transferred to the State Bank of India. That is how the appellant became a...
Hari Mohan Nehru Vs. Rameshwar Dayal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi291; 17(1980)DLT284; 1980RLR249
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) This is an appeal from the order of the rent control tribunal dated April 25, 1978. (2) The appellant is a tenant of the ground floor of house No. E-130, Greater Kailash No. 1, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 650.00 . He took the premises on July 1, 1971. The respondent is the landlord. On January 3, 1976, the landlord brought an application for ejectment of the tenant on three grounds. One was bona fide requirement. The second was nonpayment of rent. The third was non-residence of the tenant in the premises for more than one year. The Additional Controller, Smt. Manju Goel dismissed the application. On appeal the tribunal ordered ejectment of the tenant on all the three grounds. (3) I shall first take up the ground of non-payment of rent. On October 22, 1975, the landlord's counsel served a notice of demand on the tenant. In the notice the landlord said : 'You arc very irregular in payment of rent and a sum of Rs. 12,350.00 are due from you on account of arrears...
Om Prakash Vs. Child Welfare Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi137; 17(1980)DLT368
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge dated August Ii, 1976, under section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. (2) The real question in this appeal is about the custody of a male child called Rajesh. He is today 13 years of age. He was a 'neglected child'. He had no home. There was no one to look after him. The Child Welfare Board, a body constituted under the Children Act, 160 (the Act) took the child into their care and custody. On August 22, 1966, the Board gave the child to one Manak Lal Vohra and his wife Chandra Kanta for keeping him in their foster care. They had no male child. Rajesh was then 13 days old. Manak Lal and his wife brought upp the child with parental care. He became the centre of their leve and affection. He remained in their custody till 1975. (3) Manak Lal died on February 22, 1972. After his death, his wife Chandra Kanta took care of the child. On August 18, 1975 she died. On October 15, 1975, the Chairman of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›