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.
Jagjit Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1658; 1986(3)Crimes554; 1986RLR625
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) In the case State v. Kartar Singh Narang etc. (popularly known as Bomb Blast Case of Delhi) Jagjit Singh s/o Bhagat Singh r/o 52164, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was granted pardon and made approver on recording his statement under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short Criminal Procedure Code .) by a magistrate during investigation of the case. Subsequently, he was examined as a witness during committal proceedings before a metropolitan magistrate wherein he resoled completely from his previous statement recorded under S. 164 Criminal Procedure Code . and he also made it clear before the committing magistrate that he did not want to become an approver and thus sought to cast away the pardon granted to him as approver and desired to be tried turn the offence in respect of which he had been granted the pardon. The case was committed to the court of session and on the day when the accused persons appeared the petitioner was also produced but ...
Amar Nath and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1880; 20(1981)DLT327; 1982(3)DRJ85; 1981RLR641
(1) Corporation gave notice to demolish unauthorised construction: the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction but the trial court gave a direction to the respondents not to take demolition action unless fresh notice is served. This direction was not obeyed. (2) Held that :- The importance of committal for Civil Contempt lies in to assist in the enforcement of court directions and decisions. It is the last resort against recalcitrance and refusal of compliance. It is intended to assist a victim to enforce his remedy. Otherwise, justice would be undone if any court is disobeyed without fear of any punitive consequences. It is necessary wherewithal of administration of justice. (3) Held further that the remedy against the demolition direction was not a suit for injunction. Such a suit was expressly barred by sub-section (4) of Section 343 of the Act. The correct course to pursue was an appeal to the court of the District Judge of Delh...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dewan Chand Roshan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1981
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Del)132
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J. 1. The present Income Tax Reference arises out of the assessment M/s. of Dewan Chand Roshan Lal for the asst. yr. 1967-68. The accounts of the firm for the relevant previous year disclosed cash credits in the names of two minors Rajesh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar who were the sons of two out of the five partners of the assessed firm. The ITO examined the statements given before him by the fathers of the two minor depositors. Though it was claimed that these minors had disclosed the two sums of Rs. 5,000 in question as their income under the voluntary disclosure scheme of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, the ITO pointed out the boys could not have earned Rs. 5,000 each at such a vary tender age. He observed that, if at all, the amounts of disclosures must have belonged to the fathers who headed the family and not to the minor sons. In his view the making of the disclosures by the minor children which were accepted by the department did not mean that the department had l...
Surinder Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1778; 20(1981)DLT372
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The petitioner was convicted in respect of an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by a Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner filed an appeal which was entrusted to Shri Joginder Nath, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. He believed the prosecution version but found that the offence fell under section 25 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, he altered the conviction from Section 27 to Section 25 and reduced the sentence to two years. Petitioner filed a revision petition being registered as No. 47/81, which was dismissed by me on March 19, 1981.(2) Petitioner filed an application (registered as Crl. Misc. No. 1050/ 81) through Jail for review of my judgment dated March 19, 1981. Atone place he has described that judgment of Shri M.L. Jain, J., but at other places he has described the said judgment to have been delivered by me. Actually it was I who decided the revision petition.(3) The other appli...
M.K. Malhotra Vs. Kirti Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1981
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ59
(1) The proceedings for the grant of interim maintenance are proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act). Under Section 26 of the Act the Court is empowered to pass interim orders for the maintenance and education of the minor children in any proceedings arising under the Act. Thus when the wife approaches the Court for maintenance for herself and her child it has to consider the facts of the case and determine under Section 24 read with Section 29 of the Act, the amount of maintenance if any payable to the wife and the child born out of the wedlock. The learned judge was thereforee of the view that in any proceeding u/s 24 of the Act provision for the maintenance and education of children can be made within the meaning of Section 26 of the Act....
Swaran Lal Alias Swarana Pandit Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT252
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) On 3rd Feb. 1981, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi, served the petitioner with a notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter called the Act) calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed from the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act. The relevant part of the notice is as follows : Allegations That since 15.7.67 you are engaged in the Commission of illegal act and offences against body or property involving force or violence and that your activities or movements in the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi are causing alarm) danger or harm to the person or property. (2) That it has been made to appear to me that you have been continuing your criminal activities and have engaged yourself in the commission of offences against body or property involving force or violence/ falling under Arms Act, and the following cases were registered agai...
income-tax Officer Vs. Hindustan Vacuum Glass Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1981
Reported in: (1983)3ITD605(Delhi)
1. The assessec is a company and the proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment year 1969-70. The original return for the year was filed on 18-7-1969 disclosing loss of Rs. 50,736.Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 20-8-1971 claiming a set off of brought forward loss against the income of the year even prior to the allowance of depreciation for the current year. However, the ITO held that the brought forward loss could not be given priority over the current year's depreciation in the matter of set off and for this purpose he made a reference to the comments of the learned commentators Kanga and Palkhivala in their latest treatise on Income-tax Law, Vol.I, at page 38. Accordingly, the ITO completed the assessment determining the unabsor-bed depreciation for the year at Rs. 40,255, brought forward development rebate at Rs. 8,020 and the brought forward past losses were of course allowed to be carried forward in full. For reasons given in paragraphs 8 to 11 of his o...
Sushila Devi JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Del)48; [1982]138ITR551(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. The assessed, Smt. Sushila Devi Jain, was a partner in a firm known as 'M/s. Raj Motors' which was constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 1st April, 1961. She was a partner till 31st August, 1961. The other partners were, Shri P. S. Jain, Smt. Sukhari Devi, Smt. Sushila Devi, Master Raj Kumar, Master Ravi Kumar and Kumari Renu. For the assessment year 1962-63 (for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1962, the assessed filed her return at Calcutta on March 21, 1963. Part III of the return at p. 4 required the following details to be given in a case where the assessed filing the return was a partner in a firm : '1. Name and address of the firm. 2. Name of each partner including the assessed. 3. Relationship with the assessed. 4. Residential address of the partners, and 5. Shares of partners.' 2. In the return filed by the assessed the name and address of the firm was given; the names of all the partners including the assessed was mentioned but w...
Commissioner of Gift-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. I.P. Soni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi563a; [1982]136ITR838(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. All these matters can be disposed of by a common order. The question involved in all the reference is regarding the scope of the subject-matter of a gift made by I.P. Soni, the respondent in G.T.R. 1/73, to M. M. Soni, the respondent in the I.T. Rs. The question arise in the following circumstances. 2. On July 12, 1963, I.P.Soni executed a gift deed in favor of his sons, M. M.Soni. The deed of gift has not been made part of the statement of the case but it has been looked into by all the authorities and has also been interpreted by the Tribunal. We, thereforee, permitted the learned counsel for the assessed to place before us a copy of the gift deed in question. The deed shown that the donor was aged 80 years on the date of the gift. He purposed to have executed the gift deed freely, voluntarily, without any valuable consideration and in contemplation of his death. By the deed he conveyed and granted to his son 'all that plot of land situated at Jor Bagh, Plot No. 230...
ib B. Bindal Vs. Banarsi Das Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1981
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi117
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) On April 17, 1979 Shri B. B. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi confirmed a temporary injunction issued in favor of Shri Brij Bhushan Bindal applicant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) restraining Seth Banarsi Das Gupta, opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1) from interfering in the management .of the property known as modern Industries situated at Sahibabad till partition of Hindu Undivided Properties and restraining Central Bank of India, Shahdra Delhi opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 2) from stopping the operation of bank account of Modern Industries. Defendant No. 1 brought an appeal against the said order which was accepted by me on April 29, 1981 and the injunction issued by the learned Additional District Judge was vacated. On May 5, 1981 plaintiff brought the present petition (being R. A. 36 of 1981) for reviewing my aforesaid judgment dated April 29, 1981 on the basis that there were erro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »