Delhi Court April 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.
Khalsa Provisions Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR817(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This reference under the I.T. Act raises a very short but interesting question as to the interpretation of s. 153(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The assessed-applicant is M/s. Khalsa Provisions assessed as a registered-firm. The firm came into existence on October 15, 1962, but its books of account were closed for the first time on 30th November, 1963, i.e., after a period of 13 1/2 months from the date of commencement of the business. The firm filed a return for the assessment year 1964-65 on 7th June, 1964, including therein its entire income for the period from October 15, 1962, to November 30, 1963. This return was for the assessment year 1964-65, with which we are concerned in this reference. 3. Subsequently, the assessed seems to have thought that the return filed by it on June 7, 1964, was not a valid return inasmuch as the previous year under the I.T. Act of 1961 could not extend beyond a period of 12 months except in cases where the permission of the CBDT had b...
Yogesh Singh Sahota Vs. Niranjan Lal Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi222; 20(1981)DLT264; 1981(2)DRJ157; 1981RLR434
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This revision under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (.hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judg- ment and order dated August 25, 1980 of the Additional Controller dismissing the petitioners' application under section 14(l)(e) for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that the eviction petition was filed by attorney and not by the landlords. The Additional Controller was of the view that the eviction application ought to have been filed by the landlords. (2) The three petitioners namely, Yogesh Singh Sahota, Sant Avtar Singh Sahotaand'Amarjit Kaur Sahota have been residing in U.K.. They jointly and severally appointed Shri Hardev Singh Virdi, son of Shri Ajit Singh Virdi, 148/D Wazir Nagar, Delhi, as their lawful attorney to act on their behalf in their name. The petitioners are alleged to be the owners of property No. F 14/30 Model Town, Delhi occupied by the tenants. With a view to take eviction proceedings against the te...
Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-cum-super Profits T ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Del)58
: S. Ranganathan, J. - This is a reference under the Super Profit Tax Act. The assessed Paper Products Ltd. is a limited company doing business in paper products. The assessment year in question is 1963-64, the corresponding previous year being the period from 1.8.1961 to 31.7.1962. The only point in dispute is in regard to the determination of the standard deduction for the purpose of determining the chargeable profits of the company liable to super profits-tax. Sec. 2(a) of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines standard deduction as an amount equal to 6% of the capital of the company as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule or an amount of Rs. 50,000 - whichever the capital of a company is the sum of the amounts, as on the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year, of its paid up share capital and if its reserve, if any created under the Proviso (b) to cl. (vib) of sub-s 2 of s. 10 of the India...
Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., Madras Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT879(Del)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The plaintiff instituted Suit No. 324 of 1978 on the Original Side of this Court on the contention that one of the raw material imported by it is Pyratex-vinyl Pyridine Latex, which is shortly called 'V.P. Latex' for the purpose of manufacturing rubber tyres and tubes in the company's factory at Madras. This material has been described as an essential ingredient for the manufacture of automotive tyres, manufactured in India, it has to be imported. The suit relates to imports made during the period 1963 to 1968. Under the Indian Customs Tariff this material was classified by the Customs authorities as synthetic resin coming within Entry No. 87, whereas according to the plaintiff it comes under Item No. 39, namely, rubber raw. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the case of another manufacturer, M/s. Dunlop India Limited, the Supreme Court gave a judgment on 6th October, 1975, holding that 'V.P. Latex' was not a synthetic resin. According to the plaintiff, the effect...
J. K. Synthetics Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT328(Del)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by M/s. J.K. Synthetics Limited and its director Shri Sohan Lal Singhania praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kota dated 3rd March, 1973, two letters addressed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector of Central Excise to the petitioner company dated 6th March, 1973 and 9th March, 1973 and a trade notice dated 6th March, 1973 issued by the Collector of Central Excise. It is also consequently prayed that the respondents should be directed to immediately refund to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 68,84,365.86 being the excess excise duty recovered from the petitioner company with interest. The writ petition has been filed in the following circumstances.2. M/s. J.K. Synthetics Limited is a public limited company which manufactures Nylon Yarn at its factory at Kota. The company's plant at Kota has been installed under an industrial license granted for the manufacture ...
Union of India Vs. Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi348; 20(1981)DLT51; ILR1981Delhi88
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Rum is a favorite drink in the defense forces, the appellant, Union of India, purchases large quantities of rum for supply to the armed forces. They made one such contract with the respondent Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd., (Distillery). This contract, thanks to its draftsman, has been fruitful not only in raising disputes between the parties but it has also led to a sharp difference of opinion between two learned judges of this court. (2) The Government entered into a contract dated 24th January, 1970 with the Distillery for the purchase of 10,03,000 litres of rum. Clause 2 of the contract says that this quantity is approximate and is subject to increase or decrease by 50 per cent at the option of the purchaser. The exact quantity to be delivered was to be intimated through supply orders which were to be issued from time to time during 'the currency of contract'. Clause 3 of the contract is the material clause and the dispute centres round the mea...
Gurdial Singh Vs. Pearey Lal Malhan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi120; 20(1981)DLT318
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This first appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 10,300.00 on account of refund of Rs. 10,000.00 paid by him to the defendant-appellant in pursuance to an agreement to sell dated 24th July, 1965 and Rs. 300.00 as interest. The plaintiff paid Rs. 10,000.00 to the defendant-appellant on 24th July, 1965 as per receipt Ex. P-12. According to this receipt the appellant agreed to sell his property at plot No. 8/37, Kaila Colony, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 75.000.00 The balance amount was payable before the Sub-Registrar. Initially the parties had agreed to execute the sale deed within 15 days from the date of the said receipt but subsequently the said period was extended to 45 days ending 7th September, 1965. It is not disputed that the time was the essence of the contract. This extension was made by making amendment in the original receipt duly signed by the parties. The plaintiff alleges that he has always been ready and ...
Ganga Sahai Rajinder Kumar Vs. Mauji Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1981
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ245
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The Additional Rent Controller granted the respondent an ejectment decree on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. As the case was decided under the procedure prescribed by section 25-B of the Act, the tenant has petitioned this court under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Act. In support of the revision petition it is submitted that there are legal errors and a failure to properly apply the provisions of Section 14(l)(e) of the Act to the facts of the case. (2) To understand the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to state some of the basis facts. The tenant is a partnership firm M/s Ganga Sahai Rajinder Kumar. The petitioner before this Court is this firm through Sadha Ram Gupta, one of its partners. Some objection was taken that the revision is not properly filed because Sadhu Ram Gupta was not a partner of this firm when the tenancy was originally crea...
Rita Mago Vs. V.P. Mago
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT103
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) This is, indeed, an odd petition. The wife commenced proceedings for divorce and obtained an ex-parte decree. She now wants to have that judgment revised, though it is in her favor. Nat that she seeks reversal of the decree. Her complaint is that the judgment impliedly rejects her application for incurring maintenance, and it is in that respect that she is aggrieved. The argument will become mare comprehensible after I state the facts. (2) On 18th January 1979, the wife filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by her husband. Along with the petition, she filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for in maintenance pendente lite for herself and her infant daughter, and expenses of the proceedings. On 22nd January 1979, the Additional District Judge made an order that the petition be registered and 'Notice be issued to the respondent' for 1st March 1979. Nothing was said about the application for interim maintenance....
Mohd. Abbas Khan Vs. Bal Bhavan Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1981
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ56
(1) The petitioner was appointed on 21-7-57 as a physical instructor in the Bal Bhavan and National Children's Museum, respondent No. 1. The said respondent is registered under the Societies Registration Act and manages the Institution known as Bal Bhavan and National Children's Museum at New Delhi. Vide Union of Indians resolution dated 10th March, 1955 the institution known as Bal Bhavan was founded. The Administration and Management of Bal Bhavan has been vested in the Board of Management established and constructed under the said resolution of the Union of India. By an order dated 10.1.69 the petitioner was suspended on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against him were contemplated. A chargesheet dated 10.1.69 containing 13 charges was served upon him. The petitioner was required to give his reply to the charges within the 15 days. The three-member committee appointed in this behalf started its enquiry against the petitioner on 8.3.69, completed its proceeding on 11.5.69 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »