Delhi Court February 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-iii Vs. Roshan Lal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Del)82; [1982]134ITR145(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred to us for our decision: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax could set aside the assessment and issue direction to the Income-tax Officer for framing proper assessment on the legal heirs of Neecha Ram? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made in the name of Shri Neecha Ram for the assessment year 1962-63 was liable to be annulled ?' 2. These questions relate to the assessment of late Shri Neecha Ram for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The assessment orders for these two assessment years were framed by the ITO concerned on December 20, 1965, and January 25, 1966, respectively. It is common ground before us that Shri Neecha Ram, the assessed, had died on November 5, 1964, which was at least more than a year before each of the assessment orders...
Satish Chandra Khandelwal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi1; ILR1981Delhi917
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The facts. This is a case of considerable civic importance. It raises questions of some nicety regarding the municipal government of Delhi.(2) By an order of the Central Government dated April 11, 1980, made under section 490(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act)' the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the Corporation) was superseded. As a result all the 100 councillors and aldermen of the Corporation vacated their offices. They became functus officio. During the period of supersession all powers and duties of the Corporation were directed to be exercised and performed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation under sub-section (2) of section 490. All properties of the Corporation at once vested in the Central Government. The petitioner, Satish Chander Khandelwal,was elected as a councillor in the general elections to the Corporation on June 15, 1977, for a period of four years. He too had to vacate his office. He has brought this wri...
Star Paper Mills Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT577(Del); ILR1981Delhi600
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) By this writ petition the assessed company seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing two notices dated 3rd November, 1970 and 16th November, 1970 issued by the fourth respondent the order of the fourth respondent dated 1st November, 1970, a notice dated 23rd July, 1973 issued by the second respondent under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and finally an order of the second respondent dated 25th July, 1975 passed under the above section. The writ petition has been filed in the following circumstances. (2) The petitioner is a company carrying on business in the manufacture of various types of writing and printing paper with a factory at Saharanpur. Excise duty on paper was for the first time levied in 1955 and different rates of duties were prescribed for different types of paper. The paper produced by the assess was packed in reams or in the form of rolls. Naturally when the goods were packed in reams they had to be wrapped up in wrap...
Gurdit Singh Bajaj Vs. Ramesh Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi217; 19(1981)DLT178; 1981(2)DRJ98; 1981RLR247
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30/11/1979. The appeal is barred by time, The appellant has filed this application, C.M. 2179/80, under the proviso to Section 39 of the Act. His contention is that after excluding the time spent by him in obtaining the certified copies of the order of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal the appeal is within time. The copy of the order of the Tribunal was applied on 16/11/1979 and it was ready for delivery on 22/11/1979. The copy of the order of the Rent Controller was applied on 17/11/1979 and it was ready for delivery on 6/12/1979. This second appeal was filed on 1/2/1980. (2) The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is silent as to what procedure the High Court is to follow in dealing with the second appeals. An appeal in the High Court is governed by the normal procedure applicable to the second appeals in t...
D.S.S.i. Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. G.S. Sial
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT181; 1981(2)DRJ128
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is a revision petition under the proviso to subsection (8) of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalt of the tenant challenging the order dated 31st August, 1979 passed by the Rent Controller whereby he refused leave to the petitioner to contest the eviction application and consequently passed an order of eviction under-Section 25B(4) of the Act. 0n 29th May, 1979 the respondent filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act against the petitioner for his eviction from ground floor of B-105, Greater Kailash-I. New Delhi. The petitioner became a tenant with effect from 15th August, 1969 at Rs.3000.00 per month with respect to the ground floor and. first floor of the suit property at B-105, Greater Kaslash-I. New Delhi. The tenancy of first floor was surrendered on 31st October, 1973 and it continued to be a tenant on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.1500.00 . The ground floor consists of f...
Hans Raj Mehta Vs. Asha Rani Vasudeva
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi140; 19(1981)DLT52b; 1981(2)DRJ92; 1981RLR325
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) The landlord of the premises No. D/136, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, has filed this revision petition under Section 25B(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). He seeks revision of the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 22nd October, 1979 dismissing the petition filed by him under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act for the eviction of the respondent-tenant. (2) The tenanted premises consists of one room and kitchen with a small balcony. The respondent has been residing in the premises paying a rent of RS.110.00 per month from December, 1972. At the time when the eviction petition was filed (i.e., on 1st March, 1978) the petitioner was residing at 2372, Raja Park, Shakurbasti, which consisted of one room, a kitchen and bathroom, and was paying a rent of Rs. 160.00 per month. According to the petitioner, the said accommodation was not reasonably suitable for him and the landlady was also harassing him to vacate the same. He, thereforee, ...
Byford Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, New Delhi and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1981
Reported in: [1981]130ITR625(Delhi); [1981]48STC503(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This is an application under s. 391(6) and s. 443 of the Companies Act read with r. 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, wherein it is stated that the sales tax authorities should be restrained from levying penalty and charging interest. 2. The petitioner-company, inter alia, carried on the business of distribution of cars. The business apparently resulted in huge losses with the result that it owed lakhs of rupees to various creditors. On account of the inability of the petitioner to pay its debts, a winding-up petition, being C.P. No. 500 of 1970, Bank of Madura v. Byford Ltd., has been filed in this court which is still pending in this court. During the pendency of the winding-up proceedings the petitioner has filed an application being C.A. No. 126/80, being an application under s. 391 of the Companies Act. By the said application, C.A. No. 126/80, it is proposed that there should be a scheme of arrangement between the company and its creditors. The salient fea...
income-tax Officer, Special Civil No. Vii, New Delhi and Another Vs. D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1981
Reported in: [1981]131ITR571(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent as applicable to this court from the judgment and order dated May 19, 1978 in C. W. No. 882/73. By the above order a learned single judge of this court (the present Chief Justice) quashed a notice issued by the ITO, the first appellant, under s. 148 read with s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated March 28, 1970, and a second notice under s. 142 of the Act dated April 12, 1973, and also restrained the present appellants from taking any proceedings against the present respondent in pursuance of the notices quashed. The learned judge held that the conditions precedent for the issue of the notice under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, had not been fulfillled. It was common ground that the provisions of s. 147(b) were not applicable to the case in view of the lapse of time and the only question before the learned judge was whether the conditions precedent as set out in clause (a) of s. 147 had been fulfillled. This questio...
Jagdish Parshad Gupta Vs. Youngmen Benefit Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. (In Liq ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi790
Sachar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single judge by which he held that the application filed by the liquidator was within time. The company, by a special resolution of April 27, 1973, decided to go in for voluntary winding up. Later on, it moved the court and by an order of November 13, 1975, the court ordered that the winding up shall continue but subject to the supervision of the court. On July 14, 1978, the official liquidator who had, in the meanwhile, been appointed for the voluntary liquidation filed a claim against the appellant demanding Rs. 4,160. Preliminary objection was raised by the appellant that the application was barred by time. This plea has been negatived by the learned company judge and the appellant has come up in appeal. 2. Why the plea of limitation was taken because, according to the appellant, limitation would start from April 27, 1973, and as the period under art. 137 of the Limitation Act is 3 years the application filed in 1978 wo...
St. Mary's School Vs. Henry Brooks
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT263; 1981(2)DRJ90
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 7th April, 1980 of the Additional Controller fixing the interim rent of the suit premises at Rs. 201.60 per month with effect from 1st April, 1980, (2) The Appellants took on rent the premises at A-1, Model Town, Delhi at Rs. 500.00 per month with effect from 15th May, 1971. An application for fixation of standard rent was filed on 18th September, 1 972 claiming standard rent at Rs. 95.00 per month. The Additional Controller fixed interim rent effective from 1st April, 1980, The appellants filed an appeal without any success. Hence this second appeal. (3) Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two questions : (i) that the interim rent of Rs. 201.60 is excessive and (ii) that the interim rent should be made effective within the meaning of Section 9(...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »