Delhi Court November 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Madho Singh Ishar Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR437(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. The assessed in this income-tax reference is a partnership-firm and it had to file its return of income for the assessment year 1966-67, on or before June 30, 1966, but it filed the return only on February 9, 1970, after a delay of 43 months. The ITO was of opinion that there was no reasonable cause for the delay and he levied a penalty of Rs 6,974 calculated at the rate of 2 per cent. per month on the tax payable by the assessed for a period of 43 months. 2. The assessed preferred an appeal to the AAC and gave certain Explanationns for the delay in the filing of the return. The AAC accepted the case of the assessed that there was reasonable cause for the delay in the filing of the return but only up December 30, 1968. He, thereforee, directed the ITO to recompute the penalty on the basis of the default without reasonable cause being for the period commencing on January 1, 1969, and ending with the date on which the return was filed. It may also be mentioned that by t...
Brahm Sarup Vs. Dhapi Nahata
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: 1982RLR118
Yogeshwer Dayal, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dated 10.4.81 whereby the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants u/s 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for staying the operation of the ex-parte decree for injunction 14.11.80. (2) It appears that on or about 15.1.80, an application was filed by Smt. Dhapi Mahata against Shri Brahm Satup Uppal for ejectment from a miani situated in premises No. 41. U. A. Jawahar Nagar, Delhi on various grounds including the ground of non-payment of rent. On 15.3.1980 written statement was filed by Shri Brahm Satup Uppal inter alias pleading that the premises were not let out to him alone but were let out to a firm M/s Brahm Sarup Krishan Lal of which apart from him there were two other partners, Shri Des Raj and Shri Krishan Lal. Replication was filed on or about 24.4.1980. On 11.8.1980 the Additional Rent Controller deferred pas...
Avon Delux Transport Co. Vs. Sheelatha Selvamani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi93; [1984]56CompCas91(Delhi); 1982RLR462
M.L. Jaini, J.(1) The first argument is that it was not proved that it was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver that the accident took place. The trial court had noted that Public Witness . 5 who was traveling on pillion of the scooter being driven by the deceased has given evidence that the bus belonging to the appellant came from the opposite side, took a sudden swerve and hit the scooter which resulted in the fatal death and injuries to this witness also. No evidence was led from the appellant's side and thereforee the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus which caused the accident. (2) That next argument was that there was some life insurance amount received by the deceased's wife and, thereforee, this amount should be deducted from the compensation awarded. He refers to Jaikumar Chhagan Lal Patni and others v. Mar Jerome D. Souze and another, 1978 Acj 28 for this proposition. With respect we arc unabl...
Sadhna Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT210; ILR1982Delhi339
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The petitioner is being prosecuted under S. 294 I. P. C. upon the allegation that on September 20, 1979, at about 6.40 P.M., the petitioner along with three other women was performing cabaret dances in Uma Restaurant in .the colony of Naraina. They were wearing nothing except under wears and brassieres and were vibrating the various parts of their body. This' was considered obscene because such type of dances injuriously affect the character of the people. The proprietor of the Restaurant and all the four women dancers have been summoned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order of April 28, 1980, which the petitioner is challenging in this petition. (2) The short question is whether such types of semi-nude dances are covered by S. 294 I. P. C. According to that section, 'Whoever to the annoyance of others (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be pun...
P.L. Juneja Vs. Narang Bank of India Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1981
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas302(Delhi)
B.N. kirpal, J.1. This is an application under s. 45B of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, wherein the petitioner is claiming gratuity from respondent No. 1. 2. Respondent No. 1 was a company carrying on the business of banking under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. This company has gone into voluntary liquidation. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 19,500 was payable to him as gratuity on his retiring from service. The said amount not having been paid, the petitioner had filed a civil suit for the realisation of the amount claimed by him. An objection was taken on behalf of the voluntary liquidator to the effect that the civil court had no jurisdiction. On a preliminary issue being framed, the court upheld the objection of the voluntary liquidator and dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the present application under s. 45B of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, has been filed. 3. Before me, at the outset, on behalf of respondent No. 1, which has since been merged w...
Ram Nath Mehra and Sons Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi164; 21(1982)DLT38b; 1982RLR12
Avadh Behari, J.(1) Petitioner is a contractor. He entered into a contract with the Union of India for work of contruction of M.S.O. Building. A formal agreement was executed between the parties. The value of the contract was Rs. 7,82,206.00. The work was completed on 28.6.76. Final bill of Rs. 8,06,163.00 was prepared on 30.3.77. Govt. effected certain recoveries from contractor's bill. On 21 4.77, Govt. wrote to the contractor that : 'The final bill of the above work in your favor is ready in this office for payment.'(2) On 11.5.77, Govt. wrote another letter to the contractor in which it was said that the Govt. had a right to recover liquidated damages in accordance with clause 2 of the agreement as the work was not completed in time. It was said : 'Under clause 2 of the agreement, you have rendered yourself liable to pay Rs. 12,040.00 as compensation. The amount of compensation is hereby levied on you'. It is admited case of the parties that the Govt. had withheld in the final bill...
Uma Rani Vs. Vinod Kumar Dubey
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT199
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions 80 to 82 of 1980. In all these petitions the landlady is seeking to challenge the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated 23rd October, 1979 whereby the Rent Controller, Delhi had dismissed the eviction petitions filed by the landlady. (2) The petitioner is the owner of House No. 439, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. In the said house there were a number of tenants. The petitioner's husband was a Government employee and was in occupation of government accommodation at Turkman Road, New Delhi. The government had passed an order requiring the persons occupying the government allotted accommodation to either vacate the premises or, in default, incur certain obligations on the ground that those allottees were owning residential accommodation in Delhi. On the aforesaid ground and also on the ground of bonafide personal need under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act the petitioner filed eviction petitions against seven tenants....
Baini Ram and ors. Vs. Jainti Pershad and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT108; 1982(3)DRJ16
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 16th August. 1973 passing an order of eviction against the appellant-tenant under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act. (2) Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 1 on 13th February, 1970 filed an application for eviction of the appellants and respondent No. 2 under clauses (a),(b) and (c) of the Proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act alleging that the appellants were tenants under him in a portion of Property No. 3862, Sarai Phoos, Tis Hazari, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 201-, that they were in arrears of rent from 4th May, 1966 which they failed to pay in spite of service of notice of demand, that he was the owner of the suit premises, that the premises were let for residential purposes, that he required bona fide the premises for himself and for members of his family dependan...
Express Engineering and Construction Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT59; 1982(3)DRJ284; 1982RLR88
(1) The question is : Can the Commissioner require the arbitrator to make a speaking award if the amount awarded exceeds Rs25,000.00 Counsel for the parties agree that in clause 25 of the agreement there is no such requirement. If the arbitration clause does not provide for a speaking award, is it open to the Commissioner to make it a condition of his appointment Mr. Bansal says that the Commissioner has this power because under the clause he can either himself arbitrate upon the matter or appoint a nominee. It is contended that when he appoints a nominee he can tell him that he has to make a speaking award. He further contends that it is not open to the arbitrator to ignore this direction and to make a non-speaking award because he accepts the appointment in terms of the letter dated 13th December, 1979. If he is not willing, he ought to refuse the appointment. He cannot accept the appointment and refuse to abide by the terms. This is the contention. On this ground counsel says that t...
Chander Krishan Gupta Vs. Pannalal Girdhari Lal Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1981
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas702(Delhi); 1982(3)DRJ295
(1) The company was incorporated on 12th Aug. 1973. It had five shareholders, namely, Bal Kishan Das (respondent No. 2) Brij Krishna Gupta (respondent No. 3), Gopal Krishan Gupta (since deceased), Chander Krishan Gupta (petitioner) and Avtar Krishan Gupta (respondent No. 4). The main business of the company was the manufacture of zari goods and copper wire. This was in fact a family business which had been started, I am told, about 65 years ago by the father, respondent No. 2. That business was being carried on in partnership amongst the members of the family, and with respect to which partnership another litigation on the original side of this court is pending. According to the petitioner the company has taken over the entire assets and liabilities of the said family firm Pannalal Girdharilal.(2) According to the Articles of Association of the company all the five shareholders became the first directors of the company. The Articles further provided that they shall be permanent directo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »