Delhi Court March 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 Vs. Baburam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR311(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The question referred to us in the present case is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,636.50 constitutes a proper deduction from the assessed's share income from M/s. Northern Steel & General Mills in which the assessed was a partner under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The facts of the case show that the assessment year in question was 1959-60. The assessed, who was a partner in the firm, Northern Steel and General Mills, had entered into an agreement with his own son, Pran Nath, by which the son was to receive a salary of Rs. 250 and certain other amounts for looking after the interests of the assessed in the firm. The reason for this agreement was that the assessed was physically not capable of rendering services, as could be expected of him, to the partnership and he had to engage somebody else to render those services. The amount which was paid to the son out of the assessed's share in the partn...
Jai Parkash Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT437
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) On August 31, 1973 Shri V.S. Aggrwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicted the present appellant Shri Jai Parkash in respect of commission of offences punishable under section 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.G). On 3rd September 1979 said learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments, sentenced Jai Parkash appellant to undergo R.I. For four years for the offence punishable under Section 397 I.P.G. and 3 years R.I. for offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.G. (2) Inderjit (Public Witness 2) is sweet-meat seller. In 1978 he was carrying on that business at shop No. WZ-150-A Khanipur, Delhi. On Tuesday, February 21, 1978 at about 1 115 Pm aforesaid Inderjit was taking meals on a platform attached to his shop. Roshan Lal (Public Witness 3) who as a friend helps Inderjit in the working of the shop was also taking meals. Ghhotu alias Ram Sanehi, an employee of the shop was also there. (3) Case of the prosecution in brief is that tw...
Smt. Nand Kaur and Others Vs. Sukh Raj and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi319; [1984]55CompCas661(Delhi); 20(1981)DLT75b
1. This appeal under s. 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st December, 1973, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, whereby the appellants-claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 10,200 as compensation arising on account of fatal injuries sustained by their ancestor, Shri Ram Singh, in a motor accident which took place on 7th February, 1968. The appellants-claimants claim enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000. The respondent-insurance company, on the other hand, has filed cross-objections praying that the claim of the appellants be dismissed. 2. Ram Singh, son of Santa Singh, was involved in an accident on February 7, 1968, at about 10.45 p.m. He was crossing the road and had crossed more than half of the road when a taxi No. DLT 2257 driven by Sukh Raj, driver, respondent No. 1, rashly and negligently struck Ram Singh, deceased, as a result of which he sustained injuries. After ...
Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary, Government of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT559(Del)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The petitioner-company is inter-alia engaged in the manufacture of cement under a valid industrial license. It obtained 'actual users import license' for import of maintenance spare parts for its cement plant under the category of 'Cement Industry'. In 1959 it imported a complete cement manufacturing plant from Messrs Krupp of West Germany. One of the integral parts of the said plant is what is called 'Rotary Kiln'. For effectual operation of the said rotary kiln, there is a device known as reduction gear. Two of the components of the said device are described as (a) tyre part 33, and (b) wheel body part 34. In September 1976, the petitioner wanted to import these two components of the device, reduction gear, viz. (a) one tyre part 33, and (b) one wheel body part 34. The Directorate General of Technical Development asked the petitioner that it should first contact manufacturers in India to supply the said two components. In consequences, the petitioner contacted ...
Jawahar Lal Motumalmamtani Vs. Bhag Chand Motumal Ramtani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi338; ILR1981Delhi833a; 1981RLR401
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) An interesting question of law has been raised in this revision petition, namely, whether an amendment of the plaint having the effect of the bypassing of the extinguishment of right, title and interest under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be allowed. It has arisen on these facts (2) Bhagchand Motumal Mamtani (for short plaintiff.) filed on April 27, 1976 a suit in the Subordinate Court against Shri Jawahar Lal Motumal Mamtani (Defendant No. 1). The plaintiff claims to be the owner and in possession of the one storeyed building No. III-C/37 Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter called the property in dispute). Defendant No. 1 is the real brother and defendant No. 2 is the real sister of the plaintiff. The allegations made in the plaint are that in the year 1963 the defendants were allowed to stay in the property in dispute with the plaintiff as licensee under him; that in the year 1965 defendant No. 1 filed a suit for partition against the plaintiff and ...
Indian Bank Vs. R.K. Bawaja, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi124
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Writs 851/70 and 1120/70 filed by the Indian Bank and Shri Chidambaram respectively under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the award dated February 12, 1970 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi answering a reference dated April 23, 1969 made under Section 10(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the following industrial dispute : 'WHETHER the action of the management of the Indian Bank limited. New Delhi, in giving officiating chances as Special Assistant/Officer to Shri V. G. Kini clerk superceding the claims of Shri N. Chidambaram Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper was justified If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?'Shri N. Chidambaram (for short Chidambaram) is an employee of the Indian Bank at New Delhi (for short the bank). Chidambaram was appointed as a clerk in the bank on May 13, 1955 and was confirmed on November 13, 1955. One Shri V.G. Kini (for short Kini) ano...
Nand Kaur and ors. Vs. Sukhraj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi112
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act') is directed against the. judgment and order dated 21st December, 1973, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi whereby the appel-lants claimants wsre awarded a sum of Rs. 10,200 as compensation arming, on account of fatal injuries sustained by their ancestor Shri Ram .Singh in a motor accident which took place on 7th February, 1968. The appellants claimants claim enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000. The respondent insurance company on the other hand has filed cross objections praying that the claim of the appellants be dismissed. (2) Ram Singh son of Santa Singh was involved in an accident on February 7, 1968 at about 10.45 p.m. He was crossing the road and had crossed more than half of the road when a taxi No. Dlt 2257 driven by Sukh Raj driver, respondent No. 1. rashly and negligently struck Ram Singh deceased as a result of which he sustained inju...
U.N. Sood Vs. Gurbachan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1981
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ148
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) This is an application for revision filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order of the Additional Rent . Controller dated 28.2.1980 by which he held that the leave application filed by the petitioner was beyond time, and, thereforee, he was not entitled to ask for leave to defend the eviction application filed against him. Having done that he naturally further allowed the eviction petition and passed an order in favor of the respondent-landlord. The petitioner has come up in revision to this court. (2) The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction on the ground of bonafide need. It is common case that the petitioner was served with the ummons on 7.11.1979. The proceedings by the respondent-landlord are canderd Chapter Iiia, Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (to be sule the Act). Section 25B(4) requires that the tenant on which the summons are duly served shall not contest the prayer for eviction unless he files an affidavit staling the g...
V.N. Sood Vs. Gurbachan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT75
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is an application for revision filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 28.2.1980 by which he held that the leave application filed by the petitioner was beyond time and, thereforee, he was not entitled to ask for leave to defend the eviction application filed against him. Having done that he naturally further allowed the eviction petition and passed an order in favor of the respondent/landlord. The petitioner has come up in revision to this court. (2) The respondent/landlord filed an application for eviction on the ground of bonafide need. It is common case that the petitioner was served with the summons on 7.11.1979. The proceedings by the respondent/ landlord are under Chapter Iiia, Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (to be called the Act). Section 25B(4) requires that the tenant on whom the summons are duly served shall not contest the prayer for eviction unless he files an affidavit staling the gr...
Damodar Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi57; [1983]54CompCas114(Delhi); ILR1982Delhi707; 1981RLR369
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioner, Damodar Paints Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement to supply specialised coal tar to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter 'the Corporation') respondent No. 1 herein. The petitioner in compliance with the requirements of clause 15 of the general purchase conditions of the said contract furnished to the Corporation a performance bank guarantee issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad, respondent No. 2 herein. 2. It is the admitted case of the parties that the bank guarantee furnished is irrevocable. The bank on demand had undertaken to pay to the Corporation any amount specified in the notice of demand up to an aggregate limit of Rs. 1,80,000. The bank guarantee provides that it will not be determined or affected by any dispute or disputes between the petitioner and the Corporation and, further, under that guarantee, the bank has waived all rights to deny its liability towards the Corporation even if the petitioner had, at any time, required ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »