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.
Addl Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Handicrafts and Handloom ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Del)175; [1982]137ITR590(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. These are two references arising out of the assessments to income-tax of the Handicrafts & Handloom Exports Corporation of India, hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the assessed'. The references relate to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the relevant previous years being the financial years 1964-65 and 1965-66, respectively. The question of law referred for our decision in I. T. R. No. 17 of 1974 reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 6,27,000 was not includible in the total income of the assessed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 196 ?' 2. The question of law referred in I. T. R. 94 of 1974 is in identical terms with the only difference that the amount involved is Rs. 4,52,000 for that year instead of Rs. 6,27,000, which was the figure for the earlier year. The two questions arise out of the identical circumstances and the amounts mentione...
Trilochan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT667(Del)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of seizure in respect of the petitioner's goods made on May 13, 1969 and the show cause notice dated May 13, 1969 and the proceedings commenced by way of complaint dated May 3, 1969 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 2. The facts mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition are these :- The petitioner is a citizen of India and holds passport No. I-306019. The petitioner had gone to Singapore. From Singapore the petitioner brought certain goods for taking the same to Kathmandu, Nepal. From Singapore the petitioner travelled by Cathay Pacific Airlines to Bangkok and from Bangkok the petitioner travelled by Japan Airlines and landed at Palam Airport, New Delhi on 12th May, 1969 at 10.05 p.m. The petitioner was holding a ticket for the further onward journey from New Delhi to Kathmandu (Nepal), and return. Before proceeding to Kathman...
Prem Shankar Sachhan Alias Prem Shankar Thakur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT55; ILR1981Delhi746
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) Prem Shankar Sachhan alias Prem Shankar Thakur, aged about 22 years of village Nonaptor, District Kanpur (U. P.), stands convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Smt. Ved Khanna, aged about 53 years, on the night between 5th and 6th October, 1977, at her residence at No. 89, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The sentence awarded was imprisonment for life. He was also sentenced under section 342 I. P. C. for having wrongfully confined her maternal grand-son Sumedh Bhardwaj (P.W. 1) in a room of the said house to two months' rigorous imprisonment.(2) The prosecution case has been that Mr. P. L. Khanna (P. W. 12) and his wife late Smt. Ved Khanna resided at No. 89 Darya Ganj, Delhi. They had a retinue of employees attending to house-hold and other duties. Their son Sharan Khanna (P. W. 13) also resided in the same property, but he had separate set of servants. On the night of occurrence, be was not at Delhi but had gone to Bombay. His em...
Kusum Saxena Vs. I.N. Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT65; ILR1981Delhi136
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the code') by Miss Kusam Saxena, defendant No. 2 in a suit for possession and for recovery of damages for use and occupation filed by I.N. Khanna, plaintiff respondent No. 1, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4th November, 1978 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby a decree for possession and recovery of Rs. 1,237.50 was passed in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants i.e. appellant and respondents 2 and 3. The plaintiff is the owner of the building at 9, Babar Road, New Dpihi. Miss Shakuntala Rulhao, defendant No. 1/respondent No, 2 was a tenant under him in the rear portion of the ground floor of the said property on a monthly rent of Rs. 600. On 2nd January, 1971 she wrote a letter to the plaintiff to permit her the use of the room above the garage and the loft attached thereto in the said building temporarily as a licensee for her guests wh...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Bhopaletc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: 1981RLR409
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) On 29th July 1976 at about 6.45 A.M. the respondent herein Bhopal was found selling mixed milk in a can which contained on it the writing 'mixed milk'. The Food Inspector Shri Darbari Lal purchased 660 mille litres of milk from the respondent. The Food Inspector divided the sample in three parts and sent one- part of the sample ti.' the Public Analyst who on analysis found the sample to be adulterated due to .18 deficiency in milk solids non fat contents.(2) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquired the accused on the ground that the deficiency found in the sample was marginal and negligible. The Magistrate for Ins conclusion relied upon Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Om Prakash. . Against the order of acquittal the New Delhi Municipal Committee has come in appeal. (3) Mr. Gnpta ;ippe;uit]g fur the appellant contended that the ('act that in the sample of milk only a marginal deviation in the prescribed standard of purity was found was not a good ground for a...
Ashrafi Lal Vs. Labh Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2272; 19(1981)DLT450; 1981RLR443
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Spondent Labh Singh was a pre-partition tenant in acquired evacuee property No. 11/2034, first floor and No. 11/2035, ground floor, in Katra Lochhu Singh, Fountain, Dr. H. G. Sen Road, Delhi. He was living in the first floor and was running a 'Prern Khalsa Hotel in the ground floor as its sole proprietor. On September 6, 1966, he entered into a partnership with petitioner Ashrafi Lal and his brothers Yag Prashad and Har Prashad, agreeing that the business of Prem. Khalsa Hotel shall hence forward be carried on in the name and style of 'New Standard Hotel.' Labh Singh handed over to the firm all the assets of the Khalsa Hotel and possession of the premises No. 2035 for the carrying on of the business of the partnership. It was agreed that the rents of the premises shall be paid by the partnership and the premises shall constitute the property of the partnership. Ashrafi Lal has however contended that Labh Singh charged Rs. 41,000.00 in all for surrendering possession o...
Vijay Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT62; ILR1981Delhi449a
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) Vjjay Kumar of A-36, Naraina has moved this appeal against his conviction! on 11-8-1978 by Shri R. L. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code far having committed the murder of one Hakim Rai, age 60 years, on the night between 14th and 15th September, 1977, at A-29j2, Industrial Area, Naraina, New Delhi. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. (2) Briefly stated the prosecution case was that Kanta daughter of Hakim Rai deceased, was married to Darshan Lal and they lived together for about a year. Kanta's mother in the meanwhile developed insanity, and, thereforee, she wanted to keep her younger sister Shanta aged about 4 years, with her. Daishan Lal was not agreeable to the same, and as such Kanfa parted company with him and came to reside at her parents house. There was no formal divorce between them, but the marriage almost ended in a sort of private arrangement and Darshan Lal effected another marriage. This t...
Vinod Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT390
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present petition under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) involves a question whether a prosecution witness in a criminal trial can be called upon to get his voice tape recorded for enabling an accused to get the same compared with an alleged tape recorded voice of the said witness. (2) Petitioners are facing trial in the court of a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on the charges of alleged commission of offences of criminal house trespass of shop No. 835/1 Krishna Cloth Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi belonging to Ganpat Ram of M/s. Laxmi Textiles, Chandni Ghowk, Delhi and theft of Cloth worth Rs. 4500.00 belonging to said Ganpat Ram punishable under Sections 451, 341 and 380 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. (3) During the trial Shri Ram Chand Juneja (Public Witness 6) appeared as a witness for the prosecution. During cross-examination a suggestion was put to the witness to the ef...
Amarjit Singh Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT443
M.L. Jain, J. (1) On July 28, 1980, one Dewan Singh was attacked by Kulbir Singh and Kuldip Singh- at the instance of Avtar Singh. He succumbed to the injuries. The Police after investigation challaned the assailants under S. 302 I.P.G. An application was made before the Addl. Sessions Judge. on. January 3,1981, by the counsel for the complainant through .the, Addl. Public Prosecutor for permission to produce photostat copies of the two applications which the deceased is said to have submitted to the police of Ghaziabad and Delhi in January and February 1980, apprehending danger of life at the hands of the accused. They are alleged to have been discovered after the challan was filed. It was also prayed that the prosecution should be allowed to examine witnesses to prove these documents at appropriate time. (2) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his order of January 17. 1981, rejected this application, on the ground that the documents lacked authenticity as they were mere photostat cop...
Gobind Ram and ors. Vs. Harnam Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi184; 19(1981)DLT365
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The short question is : Whether appeal is barred by time. This is an appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). A period of 60 days from the date of the order of the Tribunal is prescribed for filing an appeal in this Court. The impugned judgment and order was passed by the Tribunal on 11th August, 1980. An application was made on 6th October, for obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment and order. The copying department registered the application at S No. 6118 and issued a slip mentioning 14th October, 1980 on which date the applicant was supposed to visit the copying department and collect the certified copy. The appellant, it appears, did not visit the copying Department on 14th October, 1980 as directed but went there on 15th October, 1980 and collected the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order. The appeal was filed in this court on 16th October, 1980. On a perusal of the endorsement on the certifi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »