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.
iqbal Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ512; ILR1981Delhi365
1. Iqbal Singh son of Nanak Singh was convicted by Shri P. K. Bahri, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi on June 7, 1975 in respect of commission of an offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. He went in appeal to the High Court. On December 16, 1976, the case was remanded to the trial Court for giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant on the point of sentence. Accordingly, opportunity was given to him and on March 4, 1977, he was again sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been brought by him. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : Kamla wife of Titu was running a Tea Shop in the compound of Tis Hazari Courts. Rafiq P.W. 1, Ram Asra P.W. 2 and one Munna were working as employees in that shop. On April 30, 1973, at about 10 p.m. said employees were lying outside the shop because they used to sleep there. Iqbal Singh, appellant accompa...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Ramanand Sachdeva
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR440(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. This reference by the commissioner of Income-tax under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, raises certain interesting questions but after hearing both the counsel we have come to the conclusion that these questions do not arise at this stage and that the reference in respect thereof is somewhat premature. The circumstances in which the reference arises may now be stated. 2. M/s Allied Publishers and Stationery . (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') distributed a dividend during the financial year 1955-56. 262 shares of the company stood in the name of Shri Ramanand Sachdeva (hereinafter referred to as 'the individual'). Ramanand Sachdeva, however, was also the karta of a Hindu joint family (here in after referred to as 'the family'). The individual had received from the company certain emoluments amounting to Rs. 28,879 and a dividend of Rs. 13,160. 3. For the assessment year 1956-57, relevant to the previous year which ended on March 31, 1956, the assessmen...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Vs. Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC333(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. Though the statement of case furnished by the Sales Tax Tribunal is very lengthy, the facts necessary for the decision of this case and the question which arises are within a very short compass. 2. The matter relates to the sales tax assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act of M/s. Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'selling dealer'). The selling dealer sold 12 trucks to M/s. Tosh Metal and Alloy Industries (P.) Ltd., Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the 'purchasing dealer'). The total sale price was Rs. 3,59.497.38 and these sales have been assessed at the rate of 10 per cent, rejecting the claim of the selling dealer that he was entitled to the concessional rate of tax provided in section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The ground on which the assessed's claim was rejected was that the relevant C forms issued by the purchasing dealer had not been produced. Though originally the controversy between the parties related to the 12 transactio...
Tarlok Chand Khanna and Another Vs. Raj Kumar Kapoor and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas12(Delhi); ILR1982Delhi156
1. This petition under ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the connected petitions under s. 155 of the Act, being C.P. No. 86/78, C.P. No. 91/78 and C.P. No. 14/79, and Crl. Misc. (Company) No. 3/80 under s. 340 of the Cr.P.C. surface disputes that have arisen between two groups in a private company composed of close relations. 2. Himalaya Electricals Industries (India) Private Limited, for short, the company, was incorporated in June, 1952. It was essentially promoted by Tarlok Chand Khanna, for short, Khanna, petitioner No. 1 in C.P. No. 58/78. Respondent No. 1, Raj Kumar Kapoor, for short, Kapoor, a close relation of Khanna, was admitted to its membership. The entire issued capital has, by and large, been held by Khanna, his wife and his three sons and Kapoor and his wife. In September, 1975, Khanna fell seriously ill and was eventually incapacitated and almost lost his vision. It is then that Kapoor took advantage of his absence, as alleged by Khanna, or took over manag...
Deepchand Arya Vs. Kiran Soapworks
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1981
Reported in: 1981RLR113
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) In this case both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are in the business of manufacture and sale of washing soaps. The plaintiff M/s. Deep Chand Arya Industries is in the trade since the year 1959. In April, 1976 the plaintiff adopted the trade mark 'SINAULA' in respect of their products. The trade mark 'SINAULA' of the plaintiff is registered under No. 314123 dated 19th April, 1976. The plaintiff is packing and marketing its products in the wrapper entitled 'SINAULA'. The wrapper used by the plaintiff is registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. According to the plaintiff. the colour scheme, get-up, lay-out and arrangement of the plaintiff's wrapper is an artistic work and the same is protected under the provisions of the Copyright Act. (2) The defendant M/s. Kiran Soap Works came in the business of the manufacture and sale of washing soap in June 1979 and they are trading under the trade-mark 'SINDRELA' and are packing and marketing their product in the wrapper e...
Kanti Lal Vs. Heera Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1981
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ85
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is a petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, J 958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') directed against the order dated January 8, 1980 of the Additional Controller whereby he refused leave to contest the eviction application and order for eviction of the petitioner under section 14(l)(e) of the Act was passed by him.(2) The respondent landlord filed the eviction application on the grounds mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It reads as under : 'SECTION 14(l)(e): that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation'.THElandlord is entitled to an order for recovery of possession if he proves the f...
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. National Metal Craft an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi189; ILR1981Delhi1100; 1981RLR337
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) ORAL. This is an application under sections 5, 11 and 33 of the Arbitration Act.(2) The parties entered into an agreement dated 24th February, 1978. One of the terms of this agreement is as under : 'IF at any time any question, dispute or difference, whatsoever shall arise between the parties to this agreement, upon, in relation to, or in connection with this agreement, either of the parties may give to the other notice in writing of the existence of such question, dispute or difference and the same shall be referred to arbitration and such submission shall be deemed to be a submission under the relevant provisions of 'the Arbitration Act of 1940 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof. The award so given shall be final and binding on both the parties. The venue of arbitration shall be at Delhi.' 'THIS is an arbitration clause. Acting under this clause respondents 1 to 5 in their notice dated 10-4-1980 informed the petitioners that they have ce...
Om Parkash and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi181; 21(1982)DLT160; ILR1982Delhi1000; 1982RLR128
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the order of a learned single Judge dated March 30, 1971. (2) The single question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether a property forming the subject-matter of wakf- ul-Aulad can be sold by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The property in question in this case is called i.imaji-lia-pech'. It is situated at Aligarh. It is a Dal Mill. This property was purchased in 1908 by one Shri Ram and two other persons Mohammad Ahmad and Sayaid Hussain (hereafter referred to as the Muslim owners). Shri Ram had 112 share in the said property. The Muslim owners had the other half. Shri Rain died leaving behind a sort Bolram On January 6, 1925, the property was partitioned between Balram and the Muslim owners. After partition, the Muslim owners created a wakf-ul-Aulad in respect of the portion of the property that fell to their share. A deed of wakf dated May 6, 1925, was executed. It was registered on May 7, 1925. The fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›