Delhi Court November 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.
Union of India Vs. Ashok Woolen Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1981
Reported in: 1981(3)DRJ295
(1) The damage claimed must arise out of the transaction of repurchase of the store in respect of which the default -was committed and the transaction or the purchase must be relatable to that requirement. An independent transaction or purchase even at a higher price would not justify the claim of damages. Remote or indirect damage is barred by Section 73 of the Contract Act....
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madan Lal JaIn and Sons.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR200(Delhi)
Prakash Naratn, C.J.1. The question of law referred to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', reads as under :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the cost of acquisition of shares to the assessed should be taken at Rs. 40,000 for purposes of computation of capital gains arising out of the sale of shares '2. For the assessment year 1963-64, the relevant accounting year being the financial year 1962-63, the assessed, which is an HUF, filed a return of income showing a total income of Rs. 29,720 comprising of capital gains of Rs. 21,000 and interest income of Rs. 8,720. It was mentioned in the return that the assessed became the owner of 40 shares in Roadways and General Finance Private Ltd. on April 4, 1961, which were sold by the assessed on April 18, 1962. According to the assessed the acquisition of the shares was for Rs. 40,000, the sale price was Rs. 61,000 and, thereforee, the differ...
ishwar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ924; 1982RLR27
Kapur, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of proceedings under S. 107/151, Criminal P.C. pending against him before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nangloi, on the basis of a report made by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Nangloi. A notice to show cause why the petition should not be admitted was issued and a counter-affidavit has been filed as well as a rejoinder. We have gone through the allegations made in the petition which are to the effect that the police has been repeatedly involving the petitioner in cases under Sections 107/151, Cr.P.C., and in other cases. On considering those grounds, we find that no case has been made out for quashing the pending proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code. 2. The petitioner has also prayed that all future cases which may arise against him should be investigated by a police agency other than that situated at police station, Nangloi. At present there is no case under investigation against the petitioner. We ...
Subash Malhotra Vs. M.L. Kapur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT97
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This petition for revision under proviso to Sub-sec. (8) of Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',) has been filed on behalf of the tenant against the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 29.11.1980 dismissing the application of tenant-petitioner for leave to defend the ejectment application filed on behalf of their respondent-landlord under proviso (e) to Sub-sec. (1) of Section 14 of the Act and passing an order for ejectment against the tenant-petitioner. (2) The respondent Shri M.L. Kapur, is the owner-landlord of premises No. G-42, Friends Colony, New Delhi and the petitioner is tenant in a portion of this house. (3) According to the application for ejectment, the premises were let out to the tenant for residential purposes and are now required bona fide by the respondent-landlord for his own residence and for the residence of the members of his family dependent upon him and that he has 'no re...
Begum Hamid Ali Khan Vs. B.H. Zaidi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi352; 21(1982)DLT112; 1982(3)DRJ62
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal on behalf of the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of Rent Control Tribunal dated 19th January, 1976 passing an order of eviction in favor of respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 on 17th March, 1969 filed an application for eviction of the appellant and respondent No. 2 alleging that the appellant was a tenant in a portion of the property at 270, Jamia Mtigar (Zaidi Quarters) Okhla, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 450.00 ; that the premises were let for residential purposes ; that he requires the same for himself and his family members and that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It was further alleged that the appellant bad sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession a part of the demised premises to respondent No. 2 without obtaining his consent in writin...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Raunaq and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR407(Delhi)
RANGANATHAN J. - This reference has been made by the Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of the order passed by this court on 6th May, 1974, in I.T.C. No. 35/71. The reference relates to the imposition of a penalty on the assessed-company for the assessment year 1965-66. The question which has been referred is in the following terms:'Whether the Tribunal was right in law for the reasons stated by it in cancelling the penalty levied on the assessed under section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The facts relevant for the determination of the question are as follows:As already stated the reference arises out of the assessment of M/s. Raunaq & Co., for the assessment year 1965-66. It appears that the assessed-company had made a voluntary disclosure under s. 24 of the Finance Act of 1965 and its total income for the assessment year 1965-66 was determined on the basis of such disclosure. The assessment culminated in a demand of Rs. 1,32,021 by way of tax and a notice of demand in respect of th...
Krishan Dev Puri Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1981
Reported in: [1982(44)FLR335]; (1982)IILLJ166Del
1. The petitioner, who was working as an accountant at the Branch Office of the Punjab National Bank, Pathankot, was discharged from service on 30th September, 1975. The Personnel Committee of the Bank decided that the petitioner should be discharged for writing threatening letters to the Regional Manager in highly offensive language and also on account of unsatisfactory performance and past bad record. One month's salary in lieu of notice was also offered to him by the Bank. On November 24, 1975, the petitioner's appeal against the order of discharge was dismissed by Chief Personnel, Head Office. 2. The petitioner appeared in person. As the arguments proceeded, I found that the central question for decision was whether the order of discharge was punitive in character and mala fide. For this decision it was necessary to bring out all the facts cogently which of was beyond the capacity of the petitioner. The decision also called for the analysis of the case law on the question of discha...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. S. Sucha Singh Anand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1981
Reported in: [1984]149ITR143(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, C. J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'B') has referred the following question of law to the High Court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that a return was filed on November 22, 1967, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 271 of the Act as they stood before the amendment in 1964 should be considered for purposes of imposing penalty under that section ?' 2. The question that had been recommended by the Commissioner for being referred to the High Court was : 'On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in ignoring the Explanationn to section 27(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and holding that the assessed could not be penalised for not declaring perquisite amounting to Rs. 1,500 and income from undisclosed sources amounting to Rs. 33,964 ?' 3. The Tribunal noticed that the Commissioner was not challengin...
Shashi Pal Vs. Rajkumar Mahindra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT38; 1982RLR38
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code by the deft is directed against the order dt. 1.4.81 of the Sub-Judge, 1st class whereby petitioner's application U/O. 14 R. 5 of the code was dismissed. (2) Briefly stated facts are that respdt. was running a shop of shoes under the name of 'A to Z shoes stores'at Bank street and petitioner was her employee. By means of an agreement dt. 1.9.64, the petitioner is alleged to have become a licensee in the shop under the respondent at Rs. 185.00 per month subject to enhancement if any in terms of the said agreement dated 1.9.64. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of license fee for the period 1.3.71 to 30.11.71, which suit was decreed by Shri S.R. Goel. Additional District Judge, Delhi on 1.3.75. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the decree of Shri S.R. Goel, Adj was confirmed by this Court. (3) The respondent filed the present suit for recovery of license fee Rs. 6692.00 including notice charge...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Seth Vineet Virmani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Del)230; [1983]141ITR595(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J.1. At the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax New Delhi the question of law referred for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was entitled to relief under section 85 of the Act as it stood at the relevant time in respect of amounts of Rs. 4,494 in the first year and Rs. 9,876 for the second year received by way of dividends from a company which was entitled to relief under section 84 of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessed is an individual who has shares in two registered firms and was a shareholder of several companies. The assessment years in question are 1966-67 and 1967-68 the relevant previous years ending on March 31, 1966, and March 31, 1967, respectively. 3. In the first year under consideration, the assessed received certain dividends amounting to Rs. 8,360 Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000 was the dividend from M/s. East Cost Flour Mill...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »