Delhi Court September 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.
Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Sh. Rajiv Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi359; 14(1980)DLT434; 1980(1)DRJ147
Sultan Singh, J.1. This is a petition under Section 25B(S) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenant challenging the order of eviction dated 4th August, 1978 passed by the Additional Controller in favor of the respondent-landlord. The respondent on 21st January 1977 filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act alleging that he is the owner of the suit property at B-16, Greater Kailash, New Delhi that the property was let to the petitioner for residential purposes, that he bonafide requires the premises as a residence for himself, his wife and his two children dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. He further says that he has been residing with his father at 30, Chatra Marg, Delhi in a single room measuring 17 x 15' 19' . He is the Zonal Manager of a public limited company, namely, Motor & General Finance Limited and he is also Director of other public limited companies dra...
Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Indian Hardware Industries ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas814(Delhi); ILR1980Delhi1182
H.L. Anand, J.1. These four applications C.A. No. 247/80 by the propounder and C. As. Nos. 227/80, 335/80 and 366/80 by the bank raise a difficult question as to the best manner of balancing the apparently conflicting interests of the bank, a secured creditor, the propounder, holding majority shares, the unsecured creditors and the minority group in the company, in relation to the scheme of arrangement for the revival of a sick industrial unit. 2. The facts are these. Delhi Flour Mills Company Limited, for short, D.F.M., at all material times, was an industrial venture of the Jain Family, which consisted, at one time of R. K. Jain, his brother J. P. Jain and other members of the family, for short, the Jain Family. Indian Hardware Industries Ltd., for short, the company, was a subsidiary of D.F.M. It was incorporated in 1951 with an authorised capital of Rs. 15 lakhs. The issued capital, which was fully paid, was of the order of Rs. 18 lakhs divided into 80,000 shares of Rs. 10 each. 44...
Smt. Moorti Alias Ram Moorti Wd/O. Shri Seva Ram and ors. Vs. Smt. Par ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: 1980(1)DRJ178
Sultan Singh, J.1. The relevant facts for the decision of these questionsare : Balmukand, plaintiff now represented by the respondents in this appeal became owner of the property in suit i.e. Shop No. 3434 Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi by means of parchase from the Custodian of Evacuee Property on or about 19th December, 1956 wherein Sewa Ram predecessor of the appellants was already a tenant. Sewa Ram atterned to Balmukand. The tenancy of Sewa Ram was terminated by means of a notice dated 25th July, 1968 served on him on 9th August, 1968. By this notice Sewa Ram, tenant was required to deliver vacant and physical possession of the shop on the expiry of 18th September, 1968. On 19th January, 1970 another notice was given by Balmukand to Sewa Ram demanding the arrears of rent from 19th July, 1968 to 18th January, 1970. The ground of misuse of premises and causing damages to the premises was also mentioned. Sewa Ram was required to deliver vacant and physical possession of the said shop ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Anand Prasad and Others Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR388(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. For the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, the following question has been referred for our opinion in respect of the assessed who was the late R. S. Banarsi Dass of Delhi : 'Where, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the department's contention that the profits from the sale of plots are assessable under the head 'capital gains' and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have held accordingly ?' 2. The said assessed died on 10th February, 1961, and further proceedings were continued against his legal representatives. A consolidated reference and statement of the case has been made for the three years by the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessed had an estate at Lawrence Road and some plots were sold in the relevant financial years 1957 to 1960, which correspond to the three assessment years. The ITO considered that the sale of the plots constituted a business a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Coca Cola Export Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR567(Delhi)
N.N. Goswamy, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Income-tax Reference Nos. 4 to 7 of 1973 as they arise out of a common order of the Tribunal and the question of law referred is also the same. 2. At the instance of the additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the balance to the credit of the earned surplus accounts on the books of the assessed as on 1st day of the relevant previous year or any part thereof represented reserves with in the meaning of rule 1 to the second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, as read with the Explanationn to the same rule ?' 3. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass and are not disputed. The assessed is a company incorporated in the united states of America having its head office in that country and one of its branches is in India. The assessed is treate...
Jagatjit Industrial Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi34; 19(1981)DLT48; 1980RLR696
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These two appeals raise a question of practice and procedure. Counsel for the parties tell us that there is no decided case on the point we are called upon to decide. inspire of their industry and research, they say, they have not been able to find a precedent which may govern the decision of this case. We will, thereforee, in the lonliness of our minds analyze the facts of the case and identify the Jegal principles apposite to be controversy. (2) What happened in this case is this. There was a partnership firm known and styled as Jagatjit Industrial Corporation at Kapurthata. There were three partners of the firm, viz. (1) Jagat Prakash, (2) Jai Prakash and (3) Ved Prakash. On 16th January, 1957 the firm brought a suit against the Northern Railway and two other defendants to recover Rs. 29,000.00. The plaint was signed and verified by Jai Prakash as a partner of the. plaintiff firm. While the suit was being tried one partner after another died. Jagat Prakas...
Gian Singh and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ670
ORDER : As desired by the Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi, vide order dated 24-7-1980 communicated by the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide his end. No. F5(4)/Gaz/27061 dated 24-7-1980 Shri Dinesh Dayal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, is deputed for the extension of judicial remand of all the four accused persons arrested in connection with the murder of Baba Gurcharan Singh in case No. RC/2/80/CIU(A) CBI, New Delhi, at Central Jail, New Delhi, on 25-7-1980, and also on subsequent dates. Sd/- Chief MetropolitanMagistrate. 2. Admittedly in the present case the State Government has not exercised its power as envisaged under S. 268 of the Code empowering it to direct that the four accused shall not be removed from the Central Jail, Tihar. The learned counsel for the respondents, Shri D. C. Mathur, submits that the request made by the Delhi Administrative vide its letter of July 23, 1980 (Annexure 'A') and the administrative order passed by this Court resulting in deputing of the le...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Rajindra Flour and Alli ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR402(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. Two references under S. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, being References No. 50 and 51 of 1974, have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessed in this case is a private limited company which was in the process of erecting a factory for running a flour mill at Moradabad right up to 31st August, 1964. Even after the factory had been installed, the company for reasons that will appear hereinafter was unable to commence actual production at its factory. On 16th June, 1965, the company (assessed) entered into a lease agreement with a firm known as M/s. Rajasthan Traders whereby the machinery and mills situated at Moradabad were let out for five years at an annual rent of Rs. 2,00,000 payable in half-yearly Installments of Rs. 1,00,000 each. In the two assessment years in question which ended for accounting purposes on 31st August, 1964, and 31s...
Darshan Singh and Another Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ820
Sachar, J.1. This order will dispose of the writ petition as well as an application under Contempt of Courts Act arising out of the alleged disobedience of the stay order given by this court. 2. The petitioners came to this court on the allegation that they were full owners of Khasra Nos. 351 to 353 in pursuance of the sale certificate issued under S. 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, their case being that they are the full owners and not with limited right to cut trees or to be treated as occupancy tenants as the authorities were doing. It appears that the land in dispute was the subject-matter of a notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act sometime in 1964. This notification was challenged by the petitioners by means of a writ petition being C.W. 221/68. The same was, however, dismissed on 18-11-1970. L.P.A. 209/70 filed by them met with the same fate on 18-11-1971. Another writ petition challenging the acquisition being C.W. 694/72 w...
Bansi Dhar Kapur and Sons Vs. Central Board of Revenue
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1980
Reported in: [1982]137ITR408(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. The firm, M/s. Bansi Dhar Kapur and Sons, was a registered firm with its head office at Amritsar. It was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49 by the ITO, 'D' Ward, Amritsar. Those assessments were made on November 8, 1948, and January 31, 1949, which is long before the Constitution of India came into effect. In making the assessments for these two years, the ITO found that the income of the firm was Rs. 2,92,279 for the assessment year 1947-48 and Rs. 2,08,668 for the year 1948-49, the relevant accounting period for these two years being the years ending March 31, 1947, and March 31, 1948, respectively. In making the calculation of total income, the ITO found in the year ending March 31, 1947, that the Pakistan income was Rs. 1,52,417 and the Jammu income was Rs. 17,092 and for the year ending March 31, 1948, it was found that the Pakistan income was Rs. 37,199 and the Jammu and Kashmir income was Rs. 24,449. The income as found was appo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »