Delhi Court May 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. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Del)207; ILR1981Delhi40; [1982]136ITR379(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) These two references can be disposed of by a common judgment as there is a common question of law. In Itr 1/73 the assessed is a firm carried on in the name and style of M/s. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar, Delhi. It had four partners, Shri Sant Lal, Shri Hukam Chaad, Smt. Prem Wati and Smt. Gaitri Devi. On 13-7-1968 Shri Sant Lal expired. The original partnership deed contained no provision that the death of any partner would not dissolve the firm audit was common ground at the various stages that when Sant Lal died on 13-7-1968 there was a dissolution of the firm of four partners referred to above. The firm books of account were closed on that date. Subsequently a partnership deed was executed on 16-7-1968 under which the three other erstwhile partners constituted a partnership With Arvind Kumar, a grandson of Shri Sant Lal and this partnership continue to carry on the business previously carried on by the firm of four partners. Shri Sant Lal had 30% share in the firm ou...
Pritam Dass Vs. Jiya Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi269; 20(1981)DLT215; 1981(2)DRJ187; 1981RLR492
Sachar, J.(1) The reference to the Full Bench has been necessitated because my lord the Chief Justice found an apparent conflict between the two Division Bench Judgments of this Court namely 1973 Rcr 240 Ram Parkash Kapur v. Smt. Bhagwanti Devi and 1977 (2) Del 139 Ram Nurain Khanna v. ishar Singh. The conflict relates to the nature of evidence that is required to be taken and what is the procedure to be followed by the Rent Controller while passing an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called the Act). (2) The respondent/landlady filed an application for recovery of possession on the ground of non-payment of rent and substantial damage caused to the demised premises. The allegations were that the appellant who was a tenant in respect of a shop in dispute was in arrears of rent @ Rs. 75.00 per month w.e.f. 1.10.1973. The appellant/tenant however, took the plea that the land underneath the superstructure belonged to the Delhi Development Authority...
Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1981
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC303; 1986(25)ELT171(Del)
Ranganathan, J.1. The petitioner is a company carrying on the business, inter alia, of carriage of goods by sea. At the material time, it owned five vessels, chartered two vessels and plied them on 'coasting trade', i.e., the ships carried goods from one Indian port to another. During the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 these vessels arrived at, and then sailed from, Tuticorin on various dates the details of which are not material for our present purpose. It is common ground that, before arriving at Tuticorin, the ships had called at Colombo (Ceylon) where they took on board fuel oil, which is described as 'bunkers'. Thereafter the vessels called at Tuticorin and discharged/loaded some cargo at the said port. They then left the port of Tuticorin after obtaining clearance under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Under the Act, a ship was required, while calling at a port, to declare a list of all the stores on board the vessel : this was des...
Daya Ram Sharma Vs. Bhartoo Mal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT193
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The appellant is a tenant under the respondent in a portion of the property situated at B-3/18-A, Model Town, Delhi. The agreed rent is Rs. 275.00 per month. The appellant filed an application for fixation of standard rent. The Additional Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 93-75 with effect from 1st March, 1977. On appeal by the landlord, the Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Controller and dismissed the appellant's application for fixation of standard rent. The tenant filed second appeal, under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). He also filed this application (C.M. No. 771 of 19-11) for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. The certified copy of the Tribunal's order dated 10th October, 1980 was applied on 13th October, 1980 and it was ready for delivery on 1st November, 1980. The certified copy of the order of the Additional Controller was also applied on 13th October, 1980 and it wa...
Amarjit Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi1; ILR1981Delhi191
Prakash Narain, C.J. (1) These two cross appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court deciding the question of compensation payable to the heirs and legal representatives of one Ajit Singh, who was killed as a result of being run over by a, motor truck. The accident. occurred on June 13, 1963. The truck belonged to M/s. Gopal Singh Ghanshyam Dass, appellant in L.P.A. No. 101 of 1969, and respondent No. 3 in L.P.A. No. 88 of 1969. The truck was being driven by Bakshi Ram, respondent No. 2 in L.P.A. No. 88 of 1969 and respondent No. 1 in L.P.A. No. 101 of 1969. The vehicle was insured with M/s. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 1 in L.P.A. No. 88 of 1969 and the second appellant in L.P.A. No. 101 of 1969. The legal representatives and heirs of Ajit Singh deceased are Smt. Amarjit Kaur, widow of Ajit Singh, Harcharan Kaur and Rajinder Kaur, minor daughters of Ajit Singh, and Manmohan Singh, Darsh Deep Singh and Rabinder Singh, minor sons of A...
Ram Kumar Vs. Janki Parshad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi219; 20(1981)DLT135; 1981(2)DRJ204; 1981RLR518
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, called 'the Act') by the landlord challenging the judgment and order dated November 17, 1976 of the Rent Control Tribunal, setting aside the orders for eviction of the respondent and striking out his defense passed by the Additional Controller. The Tribunal held that the defense was not liable to be struck out and that it was imperative for the Additional Controller to pass a fresh order under Section 15(1) of the Act after determination of the disputes regarding the rate of rent and the period for which the arrears were due to the appellant-landlord. (2) The appellant filed an application for eviction on the grounds covered by clauses (a) and (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Subsequently the appellant gave up the ground of eviction covered by Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The appellant alleges that the respondent became a tenant under him from April 1,...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Balram K. Kapur ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas320(Delhi)
Avadh Behari, J.1. This is a petition under s. 33 of the Arbitration Act (the Act). The object of the petition is to seek a declaration that the dispute between the parties is not referable to arbitration now and that the arbitration agreement has expired by 'efflux of time.' 2. These are the facts. One Prof. Kanwar Lal, hereinafter referred to as 'the borrower', approached the respondent Balram Kappor, hereinafter called 'the lender', in 1966 and 1972, to lend him two sums, one Rs. 30,000 and another Rs. 25,000 which he needed for publication of his books. The lender agreed to do so on condition that the borrower will take two insurance policies guaranteeing repayment of the amounts to him. The borrower agreed to this condition. He asked Sterling General Insurance Company to issue two guarantee policies, one for Rs. 30,000 and the other for Rs. 25,000, in favor of the lender in respect of the loans agreed to be advanced to him. The insurance company in receipt of the premium issued tw...
Khushwant Singh and anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT410; ILR1982Delhi836
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court dated 29-5-72. (2) The learned .trial court had partly decree the suit and partly or dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellants. Learned lower appellate court accepted the appeal of the respondent Committee and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff appellant and there by dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, (3) The suit of the plaintiff-appellants has been dismissed on the of ground that it was barred under the Provisions of Section 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act (Punjab Act No. Ill of 1911), hereinafter called the Act. (4) The plaintiffs, S. Khushwant Singh and Brg. Gurbux Singh filed a suit for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent Committee and its officials from recovering a sum of Rs. 43,369.99 from he the plaintiffs, on ie (5) The suit itself was filed on the allegations that the plaintiffs were the owners of the building kn...
international Computers Indian Manufacturers Ltd. and Another Vs. Unio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT632(Del)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. Immediately on the the conclusion of the hearing of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution we had orally announced our decision making the rule absolute with the directions regarding the claim for refund of Rs. 3,74,144.78. 2. The first petitioner is, inter alia, manufacturer of Data Processing Machines and Computers and has a factory at Pune. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the first petitioner, company. For the purpose of its business the first petitioner had imported machines and the components and parts thereof necessary for Data Processing Machines. These imports had been effected from time to time from 1969. The goods imported were classified under item I.C.T. No. 72(B) and 72(3) respectively in terms of the Tariff Ruling C.B.R. No. 36(283)56-Cus III, dated February 28, 1957, issued by the Central Board of Revenue. According to the first petitioner the practice it followed from 1969 onwards with regard to the machines and the componen...
Sramajibi Stores Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi76; 20(1981)DLT459
Prakash Narain, C.J. (1) These appeals- come before me on a difference of opinion between my learned brothers Sachar, J. and Kumar, J. (2) The appellant had entered into a contract with the respondent to supply the following: '(A)Gapes waterproofed, with detachable hoods made from Cotton Canvas special (Chemically) waterproofed mineral Khakhi. (b) Coats waterproofed, with detachable hoods made from cotton canvas, special (Chemically) waterproofed, mineral Khakhi. (e) Coats, waterproof (without Hood), made from cotton canvas, special (Chemically) waterproofed. Dyed Mineral Khakhi.'(3) Subsequent to the contract being entered upon, it is not disputed, excise duty payable on cotton canvas was increased. The appellant, thereforee, claimed a further sum of Rs. 2,21,695. 36 on account of increase in costs of production of the above articles. The respondent disputed its liability to pay the amount. Accordingly, the matter was referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement betwe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »