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.
L. Bansi Dhar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)216; [1982]136ITR771(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J. 1. The following question has been referred to us under s. 25(1) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, relating to the assessment year 1964-65 and 1965-6 : 'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the action u/s. 16 of the Expenditure tax Act, 1957, as valid in law on the ground that there was failure on the part of the assessed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for each of the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 ?' 2. The statement of case reveals that the assessed is an HUF. The assessment for the year 1964-65 was originally completed on February 18, 1965, determining the taxable expenditure to be Rs. 60,731. For the assessment year 1965-66, the original assessment was completed in September 15, 1965, determining the taxable expenditure to be Rs. 53,873. A notice under s. 16 of the Act was issued to the assessed on the ground that there was a failure on the part of the assesse...
A.K. Saxena and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: 28(1980)DLT22; ILR1980Delhi385
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The Director General of Ordnance Factories, Government of India in the Ministry of defense, framed a Scheme to be operated by the Director General of Ordnance Factories in 1950. The object of the scheme was to select apprentices for training for appointment, inter alia, to the posts of Chargemen Grade Ii and Supervisors Grade A. The selection of the apprentices for appointment to these posts was to be done according to paragraph 11 (a) of the Scheme which is as follows : 'POSTTraining employment. (a) On satisfactory completion of the apprenticeship course, the apprentices will be graded by the Director General, Ordnance Factories as fit for appointment to the grades of Chargemen Gr. I or Ii or Supervisors Gr. 'A' or equivalent grade of Sr. Draughtsmen, Sr. Planners, Sr. Rate-Fixers and Sr. Estimators or unfit. Some outstanding appretices may also be graded as Assistant Foreman. While Government offer no guarantee of appointment, successful candidates will be offe...
Brat Pal Mandal and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi394
Harish Chandra, J.(1) The petitioners are 40 language teachers in Schools in Delhi and joined service in the various High Schools of Delhi between 1st September, 1959 and 21st August, 1964. Respondents 3 to 71 are also language teachers who joined service much earlier than the petitioners. (2) The petitioners claim that they were recruited to posts created for teaching language in higher classes in High Schools, i.e., classes Ix and X. Graduation was an essential qualification for being recruited to these posts and all of them being graduates were fitted in these posts. They contend that respondents 3 to 71 were recruited to posts created for teaching language mainly in Middle Schools (i.e. Schools going up to Class VIII) and some possibly in the Middle Department of High Schools. They contend that the work of teaching language to Higher Classes is different and superior to the work of teaching language to Middle Classes and that is why graduation was an essential qualification for the...
Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1980
Reported in: [1983]141ITR168(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the decision of the specified authority constituted under s. 72A(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), who by its order dated 16th November, 1978, expressed its inability to recommend to the Central Govt. the acceptance of the scheme of amalgamation as proposed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is one of the leading manufacturers of bicycles in India. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner promoted a subsidiary company known as Atlas Auto-Cycles Ltd. The subsidiary company was incorporated in the year 1970, but it started manufacturing operations only in February, 1976. The said subsidiary company, however, did not make any profit. On the contrary, it has been suffering huge losses ever since it started manufacturing. Some time in the year 1977, the company sought expert advisers prepared a comprehensive report on the potentialities of the project of the sub...
Gubaksh Singh Vs. Dhanni Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1980
Reported in: 1980RLR397
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from a claim for compensation made by the legal representatives of one Gokal Ram on account of an accident that occurred on 25th March, 1964. The Commissioner acting under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dismissed the application on 20th October, 1966, principally on the ground that Gokal Ram (deceased) was a sub-contractor and hence not a workman within the meaning of the Act. On appeal u/.s 30, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that Gokal Ram was a workman within the meaning of the Act and also, he did die as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for determining the quantum of compensation, (2) In appeal, the appellant contends that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of the Act and the Commissioner was right in rejecting the claim for compensation. The re...
B.L. Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT56
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the order dated September 12, 1975 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h)(l) of Rule 2046 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume Ii whereby a notice was given to the petitioner that he having already attained the age of 50 years on September 17, 1972 shall retire from service with effect from the afternoon of December 12, 1975 or from the date of the expiry of three months computed from the date of the service of the notice on him, whichever is later. In the impugned order, it was expressed that the Railway Board is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. (2) Subsequent to the issue of the impugned order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner was served with a memorandum dated September 14, 1976 alleging that the petitioner while functioning as Station Superintendent Western Railway at Bombay and at Ahmedabad during the period between M...
Sahni Enterprises Vs. Keys International and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT240
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the India Arbitration Act for filing arbitration agreement and reference of disputes to thenamed arbitrator viz., Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association of which the petitioner is the member. It is stated that the petitioner had supplied clothgoods of export quality to the firm defendant No. 1, of which other defendantsare partners, on credit and some disputes have arisen between the parties.Plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 80,695.44 Paise from the defendants, on thebasis of the sale transactions between the parties.(2) Counsel for both the parties have made statement today that thearbitration agreement be filed in Court and the disputes between-the partiesbe referred to Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association or its nominee forarbitration. Hence, this petition is allowed. The arbitration agreement isdirected to be filed in Court and the disputes between the parties are referredto the sole arbitration of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile...
Saraswati Music College Vs. Annapoorna Advertising P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1980
Reported in: 1986RLR312
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) In this suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for the grant of permanent injunction seeking to restrain the latter from committing bread! of the agreement dated 15.6.1984 as also from organisation, managing and performing music concert by overseas music group known as BONEY-M Group at various places in India including Delhi, the plaintiff has moved the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from performing the musical concerts of BONEY-M till the disposal of the suit. Deft. No. M/s Annapooroa Pvt. Ltd., Bombay through Ravi lyer are the managers of the plaintiff appointed as such vide agreement dated 15.6.1984 for the purpose of organising and conducting the music to be performed by BONEY-M-GROUP at Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Ahmedabad, Madras, Goa and Bangalore, for consideration. Defendart No. 3 Barrucci Leisure Enterprises Ltd., London through Bryan Milt...
Dilnawaz Khan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ145; 17(1980)DLT437
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The appellant stood surety in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 on June 7) 1978 for ensuring appearance of Mohd. Yasin accused of offences under Section 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code The accused jumped bail on July 25, 1979. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on that date issued non-bailable warrants and also forfeited the bail bonds and directed issue of notice to the surety. The notice that was issued to the petitioner directed him 'to appear and show cause why necessary action be not taken against him as per law.' The notice is dated July 26, 1979.(2) In response to this notice, the appellant appeared and filed a reply on September 5, 1979 that he will trace the accused and produce him before the court and sought an adjournment for that purpose. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his order dated September 7, 1979 held that the petitioner- appellant was unable to furnish any Explanationn why the accused was absent on 25thJuly, 1979 and imposed 'arfine' of Rs. 4000.00 Hence,...
G.L. Mirchandani Vs. the Life Insurance Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi329
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No. 1. The jurisdiction of the Estate Officer acting under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants), Act, 1971, in issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 1st March, 1979, is challenged in this writ petition. For the purpose of determining the said jurisdiction a proper construction of the definition of 'Public premises' in section 2(e) 'of the said Act is necessary. Section 2(e) is as follows : '(E)'public premises' means and premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes ( I ) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by or on behalf of (i) any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government; and (ii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, or a local auth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »