Delhi Court May 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 1 of about 43 results (0.022 seconds)J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. M.M. Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ218
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision petition by the tenant under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the order dated November 25, 1980 of the Additional Controller refusing him leave to contest the eviction application and passing an order of eviction. (2) The respondent is owner landlord of a bungalow No. C-22, West End Colony. Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi. He let out the ground floor with motor garage and servant quarter of the said property to the petitioner. on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000.00 with effect from January 1, 1975 for a period of two years with option to extend for another two terms of one year each. The respondent on January 8, 1980 filed the eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act for its eviction. The respondent alleges that he was in Government (Army) service, living at F-1/10, (first floor) Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, consisting of the living room...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. D.L.F. Housing Constru ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Del)312; [1981]128ITR773(Delhi)
D.R. Khanna, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', has referred under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the following questions, said to be those of law for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the annual value of the property at 14, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, for the period commencing 1st October, 1958, and ending 31st May, 1959, that is, prior to 1st June, 1959, has been rightly held to be includible in the total income of the assessed-company 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 10,901 paid by the assessed-company to Shri Moti Ram Bhalla was an expenditure of revenue nature and hence allowable in the computation of the total income of the assessed-company ?' 2. The former question has been referred at the instance of the assessed, namely, the D. L. F. Housing Construction (P.) Ltd., New Delhi, and the other on reference by the Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdamba Charity Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Del)317; [1981]128ITR377(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. Yogiraj Charity Trust (the applicant in I.T.R. 147/76) and Jagdemba Charity Trust (the applicant in I.T.R. 183/77) Which was formerly known as Dalmia Jain (Jind Estate) Charity Trust, were denied the exemption from income-tax claimed by them on the ground that they were not trusts for religious or charitable purposes. This was confirmed by the judgment of this court in CIT v. Jaipur Charitable Trust : [1971]81ITR1(Delhi) , which was also affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT : [1976]103ITR777(SC) . Shortly put, the refusal of exemption was for the reason that, though many of the objects of the trust were religious or charitable in nature, at least one of them was not and since the objects were distinct and distributive and there was nothing to preclude the trustees from utilising the entire income on the non-charitable object(s), the assessed would not be entitled to the exemption envisaged in s. 4(3)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]127ITR11(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. The two questions which have been referred to us in this matter by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are mutually connected. The questions have been framed in the following terms : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sums of Rs. 8,42,378 and Rs. 2,07,838 were admissible deductions under section 10(2)(xv) for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income from interest of Rs. 1,59,245 and Rs. 1,27,925 were to be excluded from the total income of the assessed-company for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 ?' 2. The reference arises out of the assessment to income-tax of M/s. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co., Ltd., Delhi. The assessment years are 1956-57 and 1957-58, the relevant previous years being the years which ended on June 30, 1955, and June 30, 1956, respectively. 3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Yadu Hari Dalmia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)234; [1980]126ITR48(Delhi)
1. I.T.R. No. 55 of 1974 is the case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) on the following question of law arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Yadu Hari Dalmia for the assessment year 1970-71 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 10,000 representing the difference between the estimated expenditure of the assessed incurred on marriage and the expenditure duly accounted for by him, could be treated as his income of the previous year relevant to assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. The assessed had requested the Tribunal to refer certain other questions of law which are set out in para. 7 of the statement of the case but the Tribunal considered it fit to refer only one question as set out above. Thereafter the assessed approached the High Court by a petition under s. 256(2) (I.T. Case No. 4973) The court by its order dated October 10 1975 directed the Tribunal to refer the following three additional ques...
Tag this Judgment!B.L. Kapoor Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT378
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This is an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. (2) The facts germane to the disposal of this application, succinctly, 'are that on 18th January, 1978, the petitioner moved an application under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act for filing the agreement of arbitration in Court and appointment of an arbitrator. He averred that he had entered into a contract for work styled as Road Contract Work with the respondents as far back as June, 1969 but the work could not be executed and completed within the stipulated period due to non-performance of certain contractual obligations by the respondent. So he took up the matter with the respondent vide his letter dated 17th October, 1973 mentioning certain disputes which had cropped up in relation to the contract. Thereafter vide letter dated 12th November, 1973 he made a request to the personnel designata under the agreement of arbitration for appointm...
Tag this Judgment!P. Roy Company Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT318
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This suit by the plaintiff M/s. P. Roy Company for the recovery of Rs. 62,708 has been instituted in the following circumstances. The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm and of which Shri Premjus Roy is a partner (now dead) dealt in purchase and sale of shares. The plaintiff had overdraft accounts Nos. 6664 and 6665 and a current account with the Punjab National Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi. The plaintiff had overdraft facilities in the account No. 6664 to the tune of Rs. 52,000 and in the second account No. 6665 to the extent of Rs. 48,000. The 'account No. 6664 was mainly operated upon by Premjus Roy. Defendant No. 2 Ram Awtar Aggarwal was an accountant in the plaintiff firm and he had worked with the plaintiff from about 1968 till early April 1972. The case of the plaintiff is that in April 1972, defendant No. 2 went on leave and in early May 1972 he wrote to the plaintiff that he would not rejoin the service and this created suspicion in their mind an...
Tag this Judgment!Citibank Vs. Indo-american Electricals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi27; 18(1980)DLT305; 1980RLR755
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) The question that arises in this execution for determination, is whether the Delhi High Court can execute the present decree for the recovery of Rs. 13,00,000.00 along with interest and costs by attachment and sale of the factory building of the judgment-debtor situated at Durgapur, West Bengal. Notice of the application was issued to the Judgment-debtor but the report came on the registered postal envelop sent that the judgment-debtor had refused service. (2) The ground on which the decree-holder seeks execution of the decree from Delhi is that the defendant/judgment, debtor had during . the course of the main suit while seeking permission to defend the suit under order 37, rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, furnished security of its immovable properties, namely, the colony land and the colony buildings thereon as per schedule annexed thereto situated in Durgapur, West Bengal, for due discharge of the decretal amount which be awarded against it. The security bond ...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Stephen Vs. Atal Behari Vajpayee
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT337
S S. Ghadha, J.(1) This order will be treated as in continuation of the order of April 22, 1980 determining the preliminary issues and it is, thereforee, unnecessary to re-state the substance of the pleadings. The material controversy raised in the election petition is the subject matter of issue No. 7. Issue No. 7 'Whether Shri Madan Lal Khurana was in the service of the Government at the relevant time and belonging to the class of gazetted officers. If so, whether the election of the respondent is liable to be declared as void on the ground of corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? O.P.P.' (2) Shri Madan Lal Khurana (for short Shri Khurana) was returned at the election of 1977 to the Metropolitan Council for Delhi constituted under the provisions of Delhi Administration Act, 1966. He was appointed as an Executive Councillor by a notification dated June 24, 1977, Ex. P-5, published in the Delhi Gazette Extraordi...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Nath Kapur Vs. Ram Shiksh Mehta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT300; 1980RLR451
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This is an appeal from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 11th September, 1979. (2) The appellant is a tenant. The respondents are the landlords sued the tenant for ejectment on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(I)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). During the pendency of the case for ejectment the landlords made an application to the rent controller under Section 15(2) asking him to order the tenant to deposit arrears of rent. The controller made the order on August 29,1979. He directed the tenant, to deposit all arrears of rent and future rent month by month in accordance with Section 15(2). (3) From the controller's order the tenant appealed to the rent control tribunal. FollowingmydccisioninJ?.Jf. Parikh v. Uma yerma, : AIR1979Delhi17 and a subsequent decision of RanganathanJ. in Som Nath Raina v. Kirpa Ram, S. A. 0. 295 of 1977 decided on August 10 1979 (1979) 16 D.L.T. 327 the tribunal held that the a...
Tag this Judgment!