Delhi Court January 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Del)102; [1981]129ITR373(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. At the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 20,064, representing expenditure of foreign tours by the managing director and the technical adviser and fees paid to the auditor, could be included in the actual cost of plant and machinery by reference to which depreciation was to be allowed for the assessment years 1961-62, 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-6 ?' 2. The reference which is a consolidated one for the four assessment years referred to above, arise out of the assessments of M/s. J. M. A. Industries Ltd., Delhi. The assessed is a limited Company doing business in the manufacture of auto parts. Its accounting year was the calendar year. The Company started commercial production some times in November, 1960. Till October 31, 1960, the factory was in the process of construction and machine...
Ramchand Sri Ram, Vs. Hira Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT34; 1981(2)DRJ75; 1981RLR197
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The appellant filed this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on 17th July, 1980 challenging the order dated 17th April, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal. The appellant prays that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. Certified copy of the Tribunal's order was applied for on 21st April, 1980, and it was ready for delivery on 2nd May, 1980. Certified copy of the Rent Controller's order was applied for on 20th June, 1980, and it was ready for delivery on 15th July, 1980. It is alleged that this copy was ready for delivery by the evening of 15th July, 1980 and was in fact delivered on 16th July, 1980. The appellant further states that his counsel was busy in his personal case and that he took time to prepare the grounds of appeal and he filed the appeal on 17th July, 1980. (2) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, says that the application for condensation of delay is not properly st...
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi361
S.N. Kumar, J. (1) The appellant is before us against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 259 of 1979 who decided against him. The appellant challenged the order sending him back to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research where he was permanently employed before coming to the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology in 1965. (2) The circumstances leading to this appeal are that a Commission called 'Commission for the Scientific and Technical Terminology' was set up in 1960 as a subordinate ffice in the Ministry of Education, Government of India. The main function of the Commission was to evolve and develop terms for scientific and technical subjects in Hindi, and after evolving the Hindi terminology to produce works containing the terminology developed and then to get the same published. Before this Commission was set up the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, had another subordinate office called 'the Central Hindi Directorate' and...
Union of India Vs. Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi62
S.N. Kumar, J.(1) This is an. appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge on a petition praying for setting aside of an award dated 7th December, 1973 made by Ch. Ramakrishna Rao, Additional Legal Adviser, Ministry of Law & Justice. The petition seeking to set aside the award was numbered as Suit No. 25-A of 1974. The learned Single Judge referred to the pleadings of the parties, the correspondence exchanged between the parties before submission to the arbitrator was made, and the contentions raised in this Court and found that 'the controversy between the parties was in regard to the interpretation of the clauses of the agreement, inparticular clause 3 thereof'. The learned Judge then referied to the letter dated 11th March 1971 wherein a request was made to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture to appoint an arbitrator. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that a reading of the request made to the Secretary to the Govt. of India and the let...
Chhabli Das Gupta Vs. Paryagwati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT262; 1981(2)DRJ100; 1981RLR195
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenant is directed against the order dated 20th March, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 26th January, 1980 of the Rent Controller by which the appellant was ordered to deposit arrears of rent at Rs. 50.00 per month for the period from 1st May, 1979 within one month from the date of the order and continue to deposit further monthly rent by the 15th of the succeeding month. The short question in this appeal is whether the rent, if any, deposited by a tenant in the court where eviction proceedings are pending can be directed to be deposited again by an order under Section 15(1) of the Act. The respondent-landlord served a notice of demand upon the appellant. It appears that the appellant did not pay the rent as demanded in the notice. The respondent filed the eviction application on ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Vs. Envoys India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC443(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. This reference under section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, raises a very short and interesting question. The question referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, road traffic signalling equipment including blinkers as traffic equipment are electrical goods within the meaning of entry No. 18 of the First Schedule and turnover thereof taxable at 9 per cent under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, at the relevant time ?' 2. The assessment year is 1969-70. The assessed, M/s. Envoys India (P.) Ltd., manufactures and sells electric welding sets, transformers, rectifiers, road traffic signalling equipmet, delay time relays, rectifier elements, electroplating machines, etc. It paid tax on its taxable turnover at the rate of 5 per cent. But the Sales Tax Officer was of the opinion that the items dealt in by the assessed should be treated as e...
H. J. Leach and Company Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT182(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the orders passed by the Customs authorities refusing to refund the additional excise duty (countervailing duty) on the lubricating oils imported by the petitioner.2. The petitioner imported lubricating oils from abroad, the kind of which is neither manufactured nor prepared in India. Countervailing duty as provided in the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 read with Item 11-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was levied on the imports of lubricating oils from aborad. The petitioner after the import of lubricating oils and payment of additional duty (countervailing duty) claimed refund of the additional excise duty. Those refunds have been refused by the Authorities under the Customs Act in the impugned orders in the writ petition. The impugned order of the Central Government dated January 9, 1969 states that according to Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, any commo...
K.K. Bali Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi454; 1981LabIC1467
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The petitioner challenges legality of the departmental enquiry held against him for various acts allegedly committed by him in reference to the illegal strike. This was a token strike on 19th September, 1968 by the staff of the A.G.C.R. Office all over India. The strike was a total strike in which more than 50,000 employees had participated. He was found guilty of contravention of various Rules of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. As a penalty he was reduced by five stages in the time scale fixing Ids salary at Rs. 260. This was to operate for five years without cumulative effect. His increments were also stopped for the said period. The Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority confirmed the findings of guilt as well as the sentence. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority. (2) At the relevant time the petitioner was the President of the Association of A.G.C.R. Office...
Kasturi Lal Nand Raj Vs. Bakshi Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT329; 1981RLR380
Prakash Narain, J. (1) The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent on the first floor of premises No. B-184, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in his occupation claiming that he needed the said premises for occupation of himself and members of his family dependent upon him. The respondent's case, thereforee, was one which fell within the ambit of clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As required by the provisions of section 25B of the said Act, the petition filed by the respondent was dealt with under the said section. Summonses were issued to the petitioner of the petition filed by the respondent in the Form specified in the Third Schedule of the said Act. Consequently the petitioner moved an application dated 9th May, 1979, supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds on which he wanted to contest the eviction petition and praying ...
BipIn Behari Tawakley Vs. Kishori Lal Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1981
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ60
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal on behalf of the landlord under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') directed against the judgment and order dated 8th October, 1974 of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing his application for eviction of the respondents on the grounds mentioned in clauses (b) and (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The Additional Controller by his judgment and order dated 12th April, 1972 had passed an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act in favor of the appellant but had refused eviction of the respondents under section 14(l)(b) of the Act. (2) The eviction application pertains to portions of first floor and second floor of the property at plot No. 43, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The Delhi Improvement Trust (now succeeded by the Delhi Development Authority under Act 61 of 1957) granted on 22nd September, 1940 lease of plots No. 43 and 44, Darya Ganj, Delhi to the appellant and his brother...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »