Court : Delhi
Reported in : 20(1981)DLT67; 1981RLR576
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1981 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 91 of 1981. (2) There is a tussle between two groups (party No. I and party No. 2) belonging to the same community, over the management of the Society known as Sarai Khalil Welfare Society and possession of seven shops attached to the Mosque described at Makki Jama Masjid, Inderlok. The first party is headed by Bhaiya Abdul Salam. The second party comprises of 6 persons and is headed by Sabiqur Rehman. The third party, that is, Mohd. Iqbal and 5 others claim to be the tenants of the 7 shops. (The 7th alleged tenant is Bhaiya Abdul Salam). (3) In 1977, the Delhi Development Authority allotted a plot of land in Inderlok to Sarai Khalil Welfare Society for construction of a Mosque. The construction of the Mosque and the shop was completed in October, 1980. Party No. 2 who claim themselves to be the members of the managing committee of the society alleged that applications for al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1982Delhi92
G.C. Jain, J. (1) Messrs Dabur (Dr. S. K. Burman) Private Limited (for short 'the plaintiffs') entered into a contract with the State Trading Corporation of India, (defendant No. 1) for supplying 5.000 metric tonnes of Tapioca Chips. Defendant No. 1. in its turn, had admittedly entered into a contract for supplying these goods to Messrs Alfred C. Toepfer, Hamburg, West Germany (for short 'the foreign buyer'). The terms of the contract between the plaintiffs, and defendant No. 1 are contained in the letter dated November 24. 1978 (Exhibit D-26) which reads as under: 'THE State Trading Corporation Of India LTD. Chanderlok, 36, Janpath, New Delhi-110001. Division : Foods STC/FD/TC(l)/7S-79 November 24, 197S M/s. Dabul (Dr. S. K. Burman) Pvt. l.td... 813, Asaf Ali Road, New DELHI-110002, Tapioca Chips Dear Sirs, Reference your two letters dated 22nd November offering 5,000 Mt of Tapioca Chips, we are pleased to inform you that we have accepted your offer and give below for your ready refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi117; 20(1981)DLT394; 1981(2)DRJ304; 1982RLR93
J.D. Jain, J. (1) Shri Bulaki Dass, petitioner in both the above mentioned revision petitions which are directed against order dated 13th April, 1979, of an Additional Rent Controller, dismissing his petition for the eviction of his tenants, Sh. Suraj Bhan and Sh. Ram Rattan, is the owner-landlord of property bearing municipal No. 1935, Katra Kushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Delhi. (2) This is a three-storeyed building. Besides that there is barsati floor and a mezzanine (dochhatti). The whole of the building is in the occupation of the petitioner-landlord and members of his family who are living with him in it excepting two small portions which are in the tenancy of the tenants Shri Suraj Bhan and Shri Ram Rattan. The demised premises with Shri Suraj Bhan compromises one room and a store with Kolki on the ground floor and a big room on the second floor with common bath and latrins as shown red in the siteplan Ex. All. One room and a kitchen on the second floor and store on the ground floor a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 21(1981)DLT11
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The Dispute G.P.C. is an instrumentality of the State. Its full name is State Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India Ltd. It is a Government owned company. As a subsidiary of the State Trading Corporation it is trading in public sector. (2) Civil Procedure Code imported Pvc Resins Japanese make in India in 1978. The actual users of this commodity could buy it from them. The claimants. Jay Rubberco (India) P. Ltd., made two applications for allotment of Pvc Resins. One application was made on 17th October, 1978 for allotment of 100. met. tons. The second application was made on 28th December, 1978 for 200 met. tons. Civil Procedure Code issued two allocation orders intimating the claimants that the price they would charge for the goods was Rs. 96901- per met. ton ex godown. (3) With two allocation orders in his hands the claimants' representative went to Madras office of Civil Procedure Code to take delivery of the allotted quantity on August 7, 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi291; ILR1981Delhi759
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. (1) The angle question in this suit is regarding interest. (2) The plaintiff, Life Insurance Corporation of India, on 28th May, 1971 brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,56,291.86 by sale of the mortgaged property against the borrowers on the foot of a mortgage dated 19th June, 1962. The plaintiff Corporation is the mortgagee. The defendants are the borrowers. The Corporation advanced a sum of Rs. 3,18,335.67 to the borrowers. In terms of the mortgage deed the Corporation appointed a receiver of the mortgaged property to receive and recover rents, profits and income thereof under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. To begin with, the Zonal Managers were appointed receivers. Thereafter a committee of receivers was appointed by the court and then a sole receiver was appointed. After the death of the sole receiver some of the borrowers were appointed receivers to receive and recover rents, profits and income of the property. (3) The real ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1982)27CTR(Del)63; [1982]134ITR592(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred two questions for our decision in this matter which arise out of the assessment to income tax of M/s. Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1966-67, the corresponding previous year for which was the year ended on 30-6-1965. (2) The controversy in the reference raises a question of the interpretation of Rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It may be convenient before setting out the facts to refer to the statutory provisions. Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it stood at the relevant time and in so far as it is relevant for our present purposes provided that income tax was not payable by an assessed on so much of the profits and gains derived from any industrial undertaking to which the section applied as did not exceed 6 per cent per annum on the capital employed in such undertaking computed in the prescribed manner. The computation of the capital for the purposes' of this section wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1982Delhi689; 1981RLR619
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The Chandhoka were married on 27-2-1944 at Peshawar. In 1947, they migrated to Delhi. One daughter and three sons were born out of the wedlock. After 34 years of marital existence husband O.N.Chandhok filed a petition for divorce on 30-5-1977 on the ground Of desertion and. cruelty. The wife Lajwanti Chandhok pleaded counter cruelty and also alleged that the husband had extra-marital relations with two Sethi girls namely, Satish and Vinod. The learned Additional District Judge found that cruelty on the part of the wife was established. By his order of 21-9-1979 he allowed the application and dissolved the marriage. Aggrieved, the wife has come in appeal. The husband has filed a cross-objection challenging the finding that desertion was not proved. (2) I have heard arguments. My attempts. at reconciliation and counsel have failed. (3) The allegation of the husband 13 that right from the day of marriage, Lajwanti began to treat him with mental and physical cruelty and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 20(1981)DLT525
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) Mr. Ishwar Dass Bhatia is a practicing Advocate. His son aged 17 years was killed in an accident on 12th March 1978. Mr. Bhatia and his wife filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation. By an award dated 16th November 1978 they were awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 as compensation with cost and interest at 6% per annum from the 'date of the award' till the realisation of the amount. (2) It appears that the Insurance company did not pay the amount awarded, and so a recovery certificate was issued. Thereafter, the Insurance company deposited a sum of Rs. 13,085.75 in the Treasury, and Mr. Bhatia was paid the same by a payment voucher. The payment voucher was dated 27th October 1979. On 25th November 1979. Mr. Bhatia and his wife moved an application for review of the award. The allegations in this application are extremely confused. It is alleged that the Insurance company deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 which, it is now conceded, was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1982Delhi1
Ranganathan, J.1. This reference under the I. T. Act, 1961, arises out of the assessment of M/s. Mercury General Corporation Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1969-70 in respect of the previous year which ended on 30th June, 1968. The question referred to this court reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not in error in holding that as a matter of law there was no relinquishment or extinguishment of the right in the property by the assessed and whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the capital gain assessed by the Income-tax Officer of Rs. 1,26,82,13 ?' 2. The assessed-company was the owner of a big property known as 'Pili Building' situated at Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi. The building consists of 12 units bearing Municipal Nos. 411 to 422. It appears that this comprises of 50 shopes, 10 offices and about 160 rooms. They are all in the possession of various tenants. The property had been purchased by the assessed-company on Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1982)26CTR(Del)171; [1982]133ITR525(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) This reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961 arises out of the assessment of Mjs. Mercury General Corporation Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1969-70 in respect of the previous year which ended on 30th June, 1968. The question referred to this court reads as under: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not in error in holding I hat as a matter of law there was no relinquishment or extinguishment of the right In the property by the assessed and whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the capital gain assessed by the Income-tax Officer of Rs. 1,26,82,136 ?'(2) The assessed company was the owner of a big property known as 'Pili Building' situated at Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi. The building consists of 12 units bearing municipal Nos. 411 to 422. It appears that this comprises of 50 shops, 10 offices and about 160 rooms. They are all in possession of various tenants. The property had been purchased by the assessed company on...
Tag this Judgment!