Delhi Court March 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.
Hotel Rajdoot Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B Municipal Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi262; 18(1980)DLT1
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The two questions which arise for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal are (1) as to what wouldamount to the refusal to grant permission as envisaged by the provisoto sub-section (2) of section 346 of the Delhi Municipal CorporationAct, 1957 (the Act), and (2) whether any hearing is necessary be-fore the Corporation offers to compound the offence under section 468 of the Act at a particular figure (2) The appellant had constructed a Hotel known as Hotel Rajdoot,at 13-B, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi. On 20/10/1963 the building plan was sanctioned. After the plans had beensanctioned the appellant carried out the construction of the said Hotel.According to the provisions of section 346 of the Act, before the premises which are constructed can be occupied, it is necessary to obtain a completion certificate. The said section reads as follows : '(1)Every person who employs a licensed architect or engineer or a person approved by the Commissioner to design or er...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahabir Prashad and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: [1980]125ITR165(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) Sometimes, in income-tax matters, as in other branches of law, a considerable amount of judicial time is consumed in resolving a purely procedural wrangle. Thus under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 as well as its successor Act of 1961, question as to how far an order charging interest is appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then to the Appellate Tribunal has engaged considerable attention of the courts and an attempt at legislativc clarification has really not solve the problem. Before proceeding to set out how the difficulty arises the facts of the present reference under section 256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 may be briefly stated. (2) For the assessment year 1962-63 the respondent assesses, M/s. Mahabir Parshad and Sons, a registered firm, had to file its return of income within the time prescribed under section 139(1). i.e., 30-6-1962. The return was not filed on that date. The asscssee applied for extension of time on 30-11-1962, 19-2-1963...
Ceat Tyres or India Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: 1981LC584(Delhi)
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. The petitioners, M/s Ceat Tyres of India Ltd., carry on business, inter alia, as manufacture of tyres and tubes and for that purpose have a factory at Bhandup in Greater Bombay. The tyres and tubes manufactured by the petitioners were subjected to excise duty on an ad valorem basis in the case of tyres for motor vehicles originally at 60% and subsequently at 55% and in the case of others at 25%. However, by a notification No. 198/76 dated 16.6.1976 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the Central Government granted an exemption of excise duty on the production of the assessed beyond a particular limit and it is the scope of this notification that calls for interpretation in this writ petition.2. Broadly speaking, the purport of the notification was that where the production of the goods by the asses-see exceeded that during a base period (hereinafter called the 'base clearance'), the further production of the goods of the description in iss...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Y.K. Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1980
Reported in: 1982CriLJ223; ILR1980Delhi886
Prithvi Raj, J.1. Shri B. K. Garg, Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter called the 'Corporation') on 29th May, 1967, visited the shop of Narinder Kumar salesman of Ram Swarup owner of Fancy Departmental Store at premises No. HS-28 Kailash Colony, New Delhi, and after disclosing his identity purchased three bottles of tomato ketchup bearing Code No. 493 of M/s. Northland, weighing 1050 grams on payment of Rupees 4.50 for analysis vide receipt Exhibit PA and cash memo. Exhibit PA/1 bearing the signatures of Narinder Kumar. Notice, Exhibit PB, was given and inventory, Exhibit PC, was prepared which besides the witnesses, was signed by Narinder Kumar in English who made the writing A to A on the inventory in his own hand. Thumb impressions of Narinder Kumar were also taken on the inventory. One sample bottle was given to Narinder Kumar. The sample of tomato ketchup on analysis was found adulterated by the Public Analyst vide his report Exhibit PE due to the pre...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Delhi Brick Kiln Owners ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR55(Delhi)
Mrs. Leila Seth, J. 1. For the assessment year 1965-66, at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, a question of law has been referred for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The question is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the assessed is exempt under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. For the subsequent assessment years 1967-68 to 1973-74, a similar question has been posed, though worded slightly differently. It reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the assessed is exempt under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 3. We propose to deal with the matter by a common order. 4. The respondent-assessed is M/s. Delhi Brick Kiln owners Association, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. The respondent obtained a license from the Central Govt. for its registration ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. New Garage Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR122(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. This is a reference at the request of the Commissioner of Income-tax by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent-assessed is new Garage Ltd., which is now under winding up. The reference relates to the assessment year 1962-63. 2. The assessed is a limited company. The business of the assessed during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63 was that of repairing vehicles, selling tractors, implements and spares purchased from M/s. Escorts Ltd. For the purpose of this business, the assessed-company maintained a show-room at No. 11, Scindia House, New Delhi. 3. Some time in the year 1961, the subscribed capital of the company was raised from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2 lakhs. All the newly issued shares were purchased by what has been described as the Escorts group, and the Escorts group thus came to have controlling interest in the assessed-company. 4. The landlord of the above premises filed a suit against the assessed-company for eviction. Subsequen...
G.A. Mani Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi490
O.N. Vohra, J. (1) Shri G. A. Mani, sole proprietor of Messrs. G.A. Mani Sex-79, filed this application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter called 'the Act', stating that disputes having arisen out of the contract for the execution of the work of 'Construction of Asphalt Roads, Culverts & Storm Wafer Drains for Bulk Fertilizer Unloading and Handling Project at Kandla Port', reference was made to the managing director. Food. Coporation of India, vide letter dated September 8, 1977 and that Shri. B. N. Lokur, Arbitrator, had made and published the award on June 8, 1978, copy whereof was received by the petitioner on June Ii, 1978. Notice was issued to the Food Corporation of India. Simultaneously the arbitrator was also called upon to file the award which he did on July 9, 1979. Thereupon, notices in regard to the filing of the award were also issued to the patties. Food Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as the respondent resisted the applicatio...
Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT535; 1980RLR493
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) Five Criminal Misc. (Main) petitioners Nos. 115 to 119 of 1980 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) are being decided together because of similar facts and same question of law involved. This order is being written in Crl. Misc. (Main) 115 of 1980. (2) The petitioners in every case are partners of the firm which are carrying on business in Rui-Ki-Mandi Sadar Bazar, Delhi. They deal interalia in Khandsari. (3) On 14th February 1980 some staff of Food & Supplies (Enforcement Branch) Delhi and Delhi Police (Special Cell, Crime Branch) carried out separate raids at the premises of every one or the petitioners and took into possession stocks of large number of bags of 'suspected sugar' because quanity held by every individual firm was more than maximum permissible limit of 1000 quintals to be stocked under Delhi Sugar Dealers Licencing Control Order 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Sugar Control Order' issued under Section 3 of the Esse...
Bhim Singh JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1980
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi235
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The petitioner is Dr. Bhim Singh Jain who is admittedly a highly qualified doctor being L.M.S. (Punjab), Lrcps (Edin), Lrfp & S(GLG), Mrcp (Edin), Frcs (Edin) and Doms (Punjab). On 26th August, 1957 he was appointed by Respondent No. 1 on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission as Eye Specialist, Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi. Under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Central Health Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called C.H.S. Rules, 1963) were framed by the President of India and a new service known as the 'Central Health Service (hereinafter referred to as CHS) was constituted. The Chs under Rule 4 was then divided into four categories of Class I, namely, (1) Supertime Scales categories A & B, (2) Senior Scale category 'C', (3) Junior Scale category 'D', and (4) Class Ii Scale category 'E'. The Union Public Service Commission, it appears, constituted Selection Committee in terms of Rule 7(1) of Chs Rules 1963. The Selectio...
Brij Mohan (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1980
Reported in: [1986]158ITR14(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The following question has been referred to us for our decisions : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salary received by Shri Brij Mohan was to the extent of Rs. 12,000 assessable in the hands of the assessed-family ?' 2. The assessed who has sought a reference is Shri Brij Mohan, a Hindu undivided family. The said Hindu undivided family has Shri Brij Mohan as its karta and consists of himself, his wife and children. There is a partnership firm known as Sant Ram Nikka Mal in which the karta Shri Brij Mohan is a partner. The statement of case made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal sets out the history of the joint Hindu family which has been partitioned in various stages. Initially, the firm consisted of Shri Sada Nand and Shri Parma Nand who were brothers. After the death of Shri Sada Nand, the partnership consisted of Shri Parma Nand and the widow of Shri Sada Nand, i.e., Shrimati Raj Kumari. Late...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »