Delhi Court May 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.
Suresh Kumar Sanghi Vs. Supreme Motors Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas235(Delhi); 1981RLR418
1. This is a petition under ss. 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, filed by a shareholder of M/s. Supreme Motors Limited (herein after called 'the respondent company'), alleging, inter alia, that there has been oppression on the petitioner group (hereinafter referred to as 'Suresh group'), by the group led by respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'Amrit group'), and certain reliefs should be granted under s. 402 of the Companies Act. 2. It is an admitted case of the parties that Suresh group and Amrit group have equal shares in the company. Both the groups own 500 shares each. Each share is not of the face value of Rs. 1,000. The petitioner and the respondents are closely related. They are cousins. According to the averments made in the petition Amrit group has been acting to benefit itself at the cost of Suresh group. It has been alleged that the company was in the nature of a partnership between the members of the two groups and that Amrit group is conducting th...
The Indian Association of thermometry and ors. Vs. Hicks thermometers ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT246; 1981RLR646
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 109(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The appeal is directed against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dated 4.10.1980, dismissing appellant's objection under Section 21 of the Act and granting registration of Trade Marks 'Hicks' to Respondent No. I, being No. 286365. The order is the appeal has already been pronounced on 29th May, 1981. Following are the reasons in support of the said order. (2) The trade mark 'Hicks' was registered under No. 11374 dated 4.3.1943 in Glass Ix in respect of Thermometers and similar scientific instruments in the name of M/s. M.F. Stanley and Company Ltd. U.K. The trade mark with which we are concerned is in respect of Thermometers (Clinical, Chemical and Industrial) only. Import of Thermometers was banned in India in 1957 so as to encourage the indigenous industry. An agreement was entered into between Pearls and Beats (India) and Health, Hicks and Perkin Thernometer Ltd. U...
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. M.M. Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT176
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision petition by the tenant under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the order dated November 25, 1980 of the Additional Controller refusing him leave to contest the eviction application and passing an order of eviction. (2) The respondent is owner-landlord of a bunglow No. C-22, West End Colony, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi. He let out the ground floor with motor garage and servant quarter of the said property to the petitioner, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000.00, with effect from January 1, 1975 for a period of two years with option to extend for another two terms of one year each. The respondent on January 8, 1980 filed the eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act for its eviction. The respondent alleges that he was in Government (Army) service, living at F-l/10, (first floor) Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, consisting of the living roo...
N.D. Khanna Vs. Hindustan Industrial Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT236
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated February 28, 1977 of the first Additional Controller, Delhi dismissing her petition for eviction on the ground covered by clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. It has arisen in the following circumstances. (2) The petitioner as owner landlady let out first floor of property No. 152, Golf Links, New Delhi to the respondent in July 1960 on a monthly rent of Rs. 650.00, besides electricity and water charges. On November 10,1975 she sent a notice through her counsel alleging that she was the owner landlady of the premises which were required by her bona fide for use and occupation of herself and members of her family dependent upon her and that she had no other suitable accommodation. Finding no response, on January 3, 1976 she filed the eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) r...
Shyam Rumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi498; 1981LabIC1066; 1981RLR121; 1981(2)SLJ337(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The two petitions raise an important question of law for Personnel Administration in the Army. The Administration is primarily regulated by Army Act and statutory Army Rules, 1962. Section 18 of the Army Act incorporates the principle of Article 310 of the Constitution regarding tenure of services. The said section states that every person subject to this Act shall hold office during the pleasure of the President by virtue of Section 19 the said pleasure is exercised by the Central Government. Within this overriding exercise of pleasure by the President and the Central Government, Section 20 of the Army Act empowers the Chief of the Army Staff to dismiss or remove from the service any person subject to this Act other than an. Officer. We are here concerned with promotions to the post of Lt. Colonel and Brigadier. The question of law for the determination is whether the Chief of the Army Staff, who can in law, change the gradiation for promotion made by the Selection Boa...
Oberoi Hotels (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Del)114; [1982]135ITR257(Delhi)
GOSWAMY J. - The question for decision raised in this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the agreement in question satisfies the requirement of s. 80-O of the I.T. Act, 1961. The relevant facts are, as under :The petitioners are a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, having their registered office at 4, Mangoe Lane, Calcutta, and are assessed to income-tax under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioners, during the course of their business, entered into agreements with M/s. Soaltee Hotel Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated and registered in Nepal and with M/s. Imperial Hotels Ltd., Singapore. The purpose and the terms and conditions are contained in the said agreements. In the present petition, the agreement entered into with Nepal company has been annexed and, thereforee, we would give the relevant clauses of the said agreement only. The relevant clauses are as under :'And Whereas, the Hotel Company wants to construct and...
R. Dalmia (Deceased) (by L. Rs. Saraswati Dalmia and Others) Vs. Commi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Del)404; [1982]137ITR665(Delhi)
GOSWAMY J. - At the instance of the assessed the following questions of law have been referred to this court for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 47,30,892 was income taxable under the head Business and2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transaction in question amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade or that it produced business income within the meaning of s. 2(6C) of the Act ?'Assessment year in question is 1960-61, for which the previous year ended on September 30, 1951. The admitted facts are that Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. was floated as a public limited company on July 9, 1946. The subscribed capital which was all paid up, amounted to Rs. 3 1/2 crores in the form of 35 lakhs shares of the face value of Rs. 10 each. Anot...
Allied Motors Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi11; 20(1981)DLT305
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge dated May 24, 1973. Respondent No. 1, N.D.M.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') is admittedly governed by the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short 'the Act'). Sub-section I of section 61 of the Act empowers 'the Committee' to impose the taxes mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) thereof. Sub-Section (2) empowers the Committee to impose, with the previous sanetion of the State Government, any other tax which the State Legislature has power to impose in the State under the Constitution. In exercise of these powers 'the Committee' by resolution No. 5 adopted in its special meeting held on February 7, 1958 (copy Ex. A) levied the advertisement tax. This tax came into force with effect from May 1) 1958 vide Notification No. F.3 (56)/56-LGG dated 23-1-1958 (Ex. E). Bye-laws relating to the control and regulations of advertisement in New Delhi...
Daryai Lal and Another Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ70
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the sustenance by Shri K. B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, of the conviction of M/s. Jagan Nath Daryai Lal and Daryai Lal by Shri J. D. Kapoor, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Daryai Lal was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The firm was required to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The third co-accused Jagan Nath was acquitted by the trial court. 3. Briefly stated the case against the petitioner was that a sample of Haldi whole was taken into possession by M. M. Gupta, Food inspector, from the business premises of the petitioners at Shop No. 6, Khaiber Pass, Delhi, on 13-7-1974. It was divided in three parts and sealed separately. One of them was sent for analysts to Public Analyst, which revealed that it was 30.48% insect damaged E...
Babu Lal and Another Vs. the State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ41; 20(1981)DLT354
ORDER1. H. C. Malik (P.W. 2) U.D.C. of the office of the Chief Wild Life Warden received a telephone call at 3.45 p.m. on October 18, 1978 from unknown person that there is a person Nawab dealing in skins in a house on Nawab Road, Kasab Pura, Delhi. He passed on this information to the Wild Life inspector Param Vir Singh (P.W. 1). Sometimes later in the day, at 5.30 p.m. or about they both reached the premises No. 6488, Nawab Road, Kasab Pura, Delhi, where there a brush factory, (sic) partners in the factory; he himself and his sons Sohan Pal and Din Dayal. He admitted that six leopard and one leopard cat skins were recovered from the smaller room adjacent to the main door which was in his possession on October 18, 1978. At that time his servant Mangal Sain was present. He did not know how these skins came in his room, and who kept there. The other two accused persons, namely, Sohan pal and Din Dayal also wrote a letter (Ex. PW1/G) to the Wild Life Warden stating that it is true that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »