Delhi Court October 1981 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.
Smt. Nirmala Sharma, Etc. Vs. Raja Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi233; 21(1982)DLT87; ILR1982Delhi75
Sultan Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles. Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 28th March, 1980 by which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 42,300 with costs to the appellants against the respondents who were granted two months time to deposit the amount otherwise the appellants were held entitled to 6 per cent interest from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation.2. The appellants filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation while the respondents filed another appeal FAO No. 202 of 1980 claiming the dismissal of the claim petition. The Delhi Transport Corporation, respondent No: 2, runs buses in the Union Territory of Delhi. One of its buses DLP 1715 driven by Raja Ram, driver-respondent No. 1 met with an accident on 22nd July, 1972 on Nullah Market, near Community Hall, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi as a result of which Satish Chander Shar...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1981
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi197
Ranganathan, J.1. It is not necessary to state the facts at great length because the question referred to us raises a very narrow issue. The respondent assessed-company, which was engaged in the business of financing, filed an estimate of advance tax, according to which the tax payable in advance was nil. though the assessed had income of Rs. 11,50,000, it claimed that it had incurred loss in business amounting to Rs. 1,60,000 and that since all the income was the income on which tax had been deducted at source, the advance tax payable was nil. The estimate had been field during calendar year 1966 in respect of the assessment year 1967-68. The ITO, however, completed the assessment on a total income of Rs 16,97,370 (which was reduced by the AAC to Rs. 13,95,256) and eventually the tax payable by the assessed, after deducting the tax payments at source, came to Rs. 1,34,068. The ITO initiated proceedings under s. 273(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,500. The AAC...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central), New Delhi Vs. Bharat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR740(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) It is not necessary to State the facts at great length because the question referred to us raises a very narrow issue. 'The respondent assessed compaay, which was engaged in the business of financing, filed an estimate of advance tax, according to which the tax payable in advance was nil. Though the assessed had income of Rs. 11,50,000, it claimed that it had incurred loss in business amounting to Rs- 1,60,000 and that since all the income was the income on which tax had been deducted at source, the advance tax payable was nil. The estimate had been filed during the calendar year 1966 in respect of the assessment year 1967-78. The Income Tax Officer, however, completed the assessment on 8 total income of Rs. 16,97,370 (which was reduced by the Appellate assistant Commissioner to Rs. 13,95,256) and eventually the tax payable -by the assessed, after deducting the tax payments at source, came to Rs. 1,34,068. The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under Sectio...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Masco Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT14b; ILR1982Delhi626; 1982LabIC833
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which he allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Employees Insurance Court and remanded the matter to determine the true liability of the respondents in accordance with the provisions of law. (2) Section 38 of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) provides that all employees in factories or establishments to which this Act applies shall be insured in the manner provided by the Act. Section 39 provides for contribution to be payable under the Act in respect of employees by the employer. Section 44 provides that the principal and immediate employer shall submit to the Corporation such return in such form and containing particulars relating to persons employed by him or to any factory or establishment in respect of which is the principal or immediate employer. Where the Corporation has reason to believe that a return should have been submitted b...
In Re: Beejay Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas918(Delhi)
J.D. Jain, J.1. In Company Petition No. 12/81 the petitioners, S/Shri Satinder Sandhu, P. N. Handa, and N. S. Grewal constitute the Board of Directors of M/s. Bee Jay Engineers Pvt. Ltd., at present. They have moved an application under s. 633(2) of the Companies Act (for short 'the Act') read with rr. 7 & 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, for being relieved/excused from the proceedings which are likely to be launched against them in respect of the alleged contravention of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, Central Excise Act, State Insurance Act, Sales Tax Act and the I.T. Act with reference to tax deducted at source. It is, inter alia, contended by them that the original Board of Directors consisted of S/Shri J. S. Grewal, B. S. Sandhu, Mrs. B. K. Kaur and Mrs. A. K. Sandhu. However, both the ladies resigned from the Board of Directors some time in 1974 and the business of the company was, thereforee, being looked after by the remaining two Directors. They too expired some time...
Sheel Chandra Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi179; 1982(3)DRJ107; [1982(44)FLR345]
(1) Rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CP.C. seeking amendment of the main petition under Sections 33, 8 & 20 of the Arbitration Act for converting the same into a regular suit for the recovery of money, the learned Judge held that so far as treatment of an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act as a suit, sub-section 2 thereof itself provides numbering of such applications and their registration as suits. However, as observed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of S. P. Consolidated Engineering Co. v. Union of India the wording of sub-section 20(2) is that the 'application shall be numbered and registered as a suit' does suggest that it is not a suit in the fullest sense of term 1933 Lah 18 and 1914 Sind 122 also referred to).(2) After noticing the observation of the Judicial Committee in the case of Hansraj Gupta v. Dehra Dun Massoorie Electric Transway Co. 1933 P.C. 63 and that of the S. C. in the case of Maharana Bhagwat Singh Babadur of Udaipur...
Pandit Brothers Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi791; [1982]50STC67(Delhi)
Chadha, J.1. The short question raised in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the sales of motor spare parts, viz., spring leaves, made by the petitioner were made at Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana in the course of inter-State trade or whether they were intra-State sales effected within the Union Territory of Delhi. The answer would depend on the nature of the transactions construed in the light of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which provides as to when is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce in these words : 'A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase - (a) occasions the movement of goods from the State to another; or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another ..............' 2. M/s. Pandit Brothers, the sole propriet...
Satinder Sandhu and ors. Vs. Bee Jay Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi671
J.D. Jain, J. (1) In Company Petition No. 12/81 the petitioners Shri Satinder Sandhu, P. N. Handa and N. S. Grewal constitute the Board of Directors of M/s. Bee Jay Engineers Private Limited, at present. They have moved an application under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act (for short the Act) read with Rules 7&9 of the' Companies (Court) Rules 1959 for being relieved/excused from the proceedings which are likely to be launched against them in respect of the alleged. contravention of the Employees Provident Fund Act, Central Excise Act, State Insurance Act, Sales Tax Act and the Income-Tax Act with reference to tax deducted at source. It is, inter alia, contended by them that the original Board of Directors consisted of S/Shri J. S. Grewal, B. S. Sandhu, Mrs. B. K. Kaur and Mrs. A. K. Sandhu. However, both the ladies resigned from the Board of Directors sometime in 1974 and the business of the Company was, thereforee, being looked after by the remaining two Directors. They too expire...
Anand Prakash Saxena Vs. Jagdish Chander Yamdagni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT508
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This order will dispose of two civil revision petition Nos. 897/80 and 1050/8U. The first petition is filed on behalf of the tenant, Sh. Anand Prakash Saxena against the order for eviction and the second petition has been filed by Sh. Jagdish Chander Yamdagni against another tenant, Smt. Vimla Batra and others. (2) Two eviction petitions were filed by Sh. Jagdish Chander Yamdagni against his two tenants-one against Sh. Anand Prakash Saxena and the other against Smt. Vimla Batra & others. These two petitions were consolidated by learned Rent Controller and the evidence was recorded in the petition filed by the landlord against Sh. Anand Prakash Saxena. (3) The learned Rent Controller accepted the petition of the landlord against Sh. Anand prakash Saxena but dismissed the other eviction petition against Smt. Vimla Batra & others. (4) thereforee, Shri Anand Prakash Saxena has come up in revision against his order of eviction whereas Sh. Jagdish Chander Yamdagni has ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›