Delhi Court August 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.
Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander and Brothers Vs. Sohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi122; 20(1981)DLT454b; 1982RLR82
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 19-40. (2) The petitioner, M/s. Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander & Bros., is a partnership firm carrying on cloth business at Delhi. The respondent Sohan Lal is the sole proprietor of business known as M/s. Amir Chand Sohan Lal. He carries on cloth business at Meerut. The petitioner sold cloth to the respondent. The dealings started on 18th April, 1978 and ended on 29th September, 1979. Over this period of a year and 5 months, the respondent purchased cloth which is evidenced by 84 bills issued by the petitioner. (3) All the 84 bills have been produced on the record. Three of these bills are admittedly signed by the respondent. These are Exhibits P1, P2 and P3. The remaining 81 bills are also admitted by the respondent a& he does not deny that these bills were issued by the petitioner firm from Delhi in regard to the cloth purchased by him. In fact, 77 of these bills were produced by the responden...
Hazar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1981
Reported in: 21(1981)DLT35; ILR1982Delhi220; 1981(2)SLJ517(Delhi)
Sachar, J. (1) This writ petition challenges the impugned order of the President conveyed to the petitioner by memo of 4-6-1979 by which the President has been pleased to forfeit the pension that would have been admissible to him' under the Pension Regulations had he retired from service in the normal course. The petition was heard along with the L.P.A. 94/1975. That Letters Patent Appeal challenged the impugned order dated 21-9-1971 passed by the President in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Air Force Act by which the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. We have by a separate judgment dismissed that appeal and have held that the impugned order was passed in the exercise of Presidential pleasure as envisaged in Article 310(1) of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Air Force Act, notwithstanding the use of the Word 'dismissal'. (2) The petitioner was given a memo of 27-4-1979 asking him to show cause why the pension should not be forfeited under Regu...
Tejinder Singh Vs. Bhavi Chand Jindal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT78
ORDER1. Both these revision petitions spring from the same order dated 5th May, 1981 of an Additional Sessions Judge permitting the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of the respondents 1 to 5. Show cause notice was issued to the State (Delhi Administration) and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Normally speaking a detailed speaking order at the stage of admission is not called for but having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and full dress arguments having been made before me, it is but meet that I record reasons for dismissing these revision petitions in liming. 2. The prosecution case succinctly is that on 20th June, 1974, a party of income tax officials, inter alai, comprising S/Shri Tejinder Singh, Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), J. S. Gill, I.T.O., Vijay Kumar and S. N. Balooni, Inspectors, duly armed with search warrants issued by the Income-tax Commissioner under S. 132 of the Income-tax Act visited East Patel Na...
The Pelhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi29; ILR1982Delhi507
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioner in this writ. petition is seeking to challenge the Notification dated 12th November, 1970 whereby the minimum sugarcane price for two of the petitioner's factories, namely. Daurala Sugar Works and Maw- ana Sugar Works was fixed in respect of the season 1970-71. (2) The aforesaid two sugar factories owned by the petitioner are situated in District Meerut in Uttar Pradesh. Under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the Central Government has been regulating the price, distribution and movement of sugar and has also been fixing the price of sugarcane. Under saction 3 of the Essefitial Commoditi.'s Act, 1955 the Central Government issued the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, which Order repealed an earlier similar Order of 1955. In this writ petition we are concerned with clause 3 of the said Order. The said clause enable the Central Govt. to fix minimum price of sugarcane payable by a producer of sugar. The relevant portion of the said clause, namely, claus...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Lakshmi Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT316
M.L. Jain, J.(1) A suit was filed on 8.3.1967 by Lakshmi Chand, his mother Kamla Devi and his daughter Parkash Wati against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Municipal Corporation did not file any written statement to contest the suit in spite of several adjournments. It was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge on 9.12.1968. It was held that the plaintiffs were owners of 1 bigha and 18 bids was of Khasra No. 351/2597/1119 in village Basai Darapur, Delhi, out of which I bigha and 10 bids was were acquired in 1963. Thus, 8 bids was of land was left out of acquisition. The plaintiffs were held entitled to possession thereof. They were also awarded Rs. 1,440.00 towards mesne profits. (2) Kamla Devi died on 20-3-1969. Anappeal was filed against the decree by the Corporation. On 29.4.1969 an application for deletion of her name was made. While this application was pending the appeal itself was dismissed indefault on 19.1.1970. (3) An application was moved under Order 41 Rule 19 read with s...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi64
Sachar, J.1. The question of law referred to this court is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that there was a completed sale on February 5, 1948, and, thereforee, the sum of Rs. 3,59,559 was not liable to be taxed as the income of the assessed-company ?' 2. The assessed-company is a dealer in shares. The case relates to the assessment year 1953-54. In the course of its dealings in shares it entered into some transaction on February 5, 1948, with one Mrs. Rama Jain for the sale to her of 52,000 shares of Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. and of 22,500 shares of N. S. D. & Cold Storage Ltd. (valued at Rs. 8,40,500) and another with Mr. R. Dalmia for the sale of 7,500 shares of Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (for the value of Rs. 7,80,000 (though the transaction related to some other shares also but the same is not the subject-matter of reference before us). These shares wer...
Premier Tyre Ltd. Vs. State Trading Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: 1981RLR138
Sachar, J. (1) What sanctity and effectiveness is to be attached to the Bank guarantees which are also called performance guarantees is the question that calls for decision in this appeal? (2) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single judge by which he refused the application for the appellant for interim injunction (arising out of a suit filed by appellant) restraining the respondent from Realizing any amount in pursuance of the bank guarantee dated 6.3.1979 furnished to it by the appellant from the Bank of India. (3) The plaintiff is a manufacturer of tyres. One of the raw materials which is used in the manufacture of tyres is natural rubber. The import of natural rubber is canalised through respondent. For their requirements the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for the supply by the respondent of 360 Mt of SMR-20 quality of natural rubber Along with the registration application a bank guarantee from the Bank of India for Rs. 3.6 lakhs was furni...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Inder SaIn Minocha and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi260; 20(1981)DLT515; 1982(3)DRJ69; ILR1981Delhi733a; 1982RLR1
G.C. Jain, J. (1) Shri Inder Sain Minocha and his son, Harish Chandra Minocha, are owners of house No. B-l68, Gujranwala Town, Delhi. Apparently, on or about April 2, 1973 they entered into an agreement with the appellant, Shri Vijay Kumar Bajaj, for creating a limited tenancy in his favor in respect of a portion on the second floor of that house consisting of one Barsati, one latrine-cum-bath, open verandab, after obtaining the necessary permission from the Rent Controller. In pursuance of this arrangement an application under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') for permission to create a limited tenancy for a period of two years was made before the Controller. The Additional Controller granted the permission vide his order dated April 2, 1973. On March 31,1975, respondent No. 1, Inder Span Minocha, made a second application under Section 21 of thAct for permission to create limited tenancy for a further period of two years with effect from April 2, 1975. It...
Union of India Vs. Commercial Metal Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi775; 1982RLR163
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) On 15th January, 1972 the petitioner, Union of India, entered into a contract of purchase of stores with the respondent. Commercial Metal Corporation (the Corporation). The stores to be supplied to the Union were leaded bronze ingots. 200 metric tonne of these ingots were to be delivered. The Corporation supplied 1,63,020 metric ton. They failed to supply 36,980 metric ton. The last date for delivery was 31st January, 1973. The delivery period was extended from time to time. Finally the Union of India cancelled the contract on 15th February, 1975. (2) Disputes arose between the parties. There was an arbitration clause in. the contract. The matters in difference were referred to the arbitrator. The Union Of India made a claim for Rs. '3,28,258.86 on account of general damages against the Corporation for non-delivery. The Corporation in its turn made a counter claim against the Union of India. The arbitrator heard the parties. On 28th March, 1980 he made and p...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Nidhi Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas80(Delhi); [1982]133ITR447(Delhi)
Sachar, J.(1) The question of law referred to this court is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that there was a completed sale on 5-2-1948 and thereforee the sum of Rs. 3,59,559 was not liable to be taxed as income of the assessed company ?'The assessed company is a dealer in shares. The case relates to the assessment year 1953-54. In the course of its dealings in shares it entered into some transaction on 5-2-1948 with one Mrs. Rama Jain for the sale to her of 52000 shares of Dehri Rohtash Light Railway Company Ltd. and of 22500 shares of N. S. D. & Cold Storage Ltd. (valued at Rs. 8,40,500) and another with Mr. R. Dalmia for the sale of 7500 shares of Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. (for the value of Rs. 7,80,000) (though the transaction related to some other shares also but the same is not the subject matter of reference before us). These shares were not taken delivery of nor w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »