Delhi Court September 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.
S.K. Arora Vs. S.L. Sarna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi205; 20(1981)DLT480
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This petition for revision is under the proviso to Sub-section 8 of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated 31st July, 1980 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-tenant for leave to contest the application for ejectment filed by the respondent-landlord on the grounds specified in clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section I of Section 14 of the Act. (2) For a proper appreciation of the case of the parties it is necessary to deal with the pleadings and facts in detail. (3) An application for ejectment was filed by the respondent-landlord, Shri S.L. Sarna against Shri S.K. Arora (tenant) for ejectment on the ground of bonafide personal requirement under the aforesaid provision. Since the petition for ejectment was filed on the aforesaid ground the application for ejectment was dealt with under the summary procedure for trial for such applicat...
Vij Sales Corporation Vs. Lufthansa, German Airlines
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi749
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) On 31-7-1976, the plaintiff firm through its agent M/s. Continental Carriers, New Delhi, booked a consignment of readymade goods of the value of Rs. 1,48,200 with the defendant airlines turn carriage to London under Airway Bill No. 220-5673 9174. The documents thereof were negotiated through the State Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Department, New Delhi, for collection by their counter-part in London from M/s R. K. Fashions Ltd. London who was the consignee. The consignment reached London on 4-8-1976, but was not got released by M/s.R. K. Fashions Ltd. For this default, the defendant demanded storage charges as demurrage to the extent of Rs. 48,838.45 p., and this the plaintiff was obliged to pay in order to protect the goods. According to the defendant, however, on the arrival of the consignment In London, the documents were passed to M/s.Express Enterprises, nominated clearing agents of M/s. R. K. Fashions Ltd. for clearance of the custom formalities pending rece...
Madhubala Gupta Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT399
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the wife for the production of her husband Purshottam Das Gupta in the Court and for the quashing of the order of detention dated 1st August, 1981. (2) By an order dated 1st August, 1981 under sub-station (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 the Commissioner of Police Shri P.S. Bhindar detained Purshottam Das Gupta with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention Along with some documents were served on the detenu on 5th August, 1981. The detenu by a Writing (AnnexureR. 4) acknowledge the receipt of the grounds of detention and other documents. The detenu was orally informed that he had a right to make representation against the detention to the Lieutenant Governor and the Advisory Board. The said oral information was acknowledged by the detenu in the writing annexure R-4. (3) On 11th August 1981 the wife ...
Sudsons Construction Co. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR634(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This is a consolidated reference under the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 at the instance of the assessed, M/s. Sudsons Construction Co. The assessed was a firm which was assessed as a registered firm for the assessment year 1966-67. But for the two subsequent years with which we are concerned the firm did not seek any registration or the benefit of continuance of registration but instead filed returns in the status of unregistered firms. Basing himself on these returns the ITO assessed the firm to tax as an unregistered firm for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1968-69 by orders passed on January 28, 1971. 2. The assessed filed appeals to the AAC, and, before the AAC, took up a plea for the firsts time that the assessments of the firm as such were invalid for the reason that two of the partners. Shri G. M. Sud and Shri Virender Sud have been separately assessed for each of these years and that these assessments had been completed prior to Januar...
Indian Glass Agency Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Del)394; [1982]137ITR245(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) All these references under the Income-tax Act raise the same question. They relate to the assessments of the firm known as Indian Glass Agency for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75, the relevant previous years being the financial years 1970-71 to 1973-74. As we. shall point out later, the facts relating to the first of these years and the others are slightly different and we may, to start with, take the facts set out by the Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 1971-72.(2) The assessed firm had four partners : Jai Gopal, (and his three sons) Satish Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Santosh Kumar. On 14-5-1970, Jai Gopal purported to make a gift to Deepankar, the minor son of Sushil Kumar. It is stated that the gift was made by Jai Gopal giving necessary instructions to the firm and the firm giving effect to the transaction by debiting the account of Jai Gopal and crediting an account started for Deepankar with the said amount, Sushil Kumar accepting the gift on...
Taj Pal Om Parkash Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)2ITD107(Delhi)
1. The assessee, a registered firm, deals in cloth and yarn on a wholesale basis. Its head office is situated at Delhi and it has a branch at Bombay. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessment was completed on 12-10-1979 on a total income of Rs. 98,653. In this assessment a sum of Rs. 8,588 was added as extra profit in the trading account. The assessee filed an appeal on 5-12-1979 against this addition. The appeal was fixed for hearing by the AAC on 28-1-1980, but according to the AAC nobody attended before him and, therefore, the appeal was taken up on merits and decided against the assessee. The assessee's appeal is against this order of the AAC.2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the AAC dated 28-1-1980 was received on 19-9-1980 and the assessee was surprised that the appeal came to be decided ex parte, because no notice of hearing was received by the assessee. He explained that by a letter dated 27-9-1980 the assessee had requested the AAC to r...
income-tax Officer Vs. K.R. Gupta
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD771(Delhi)
1. As a result of the difference of opinion between the members of the Delhi Bench 'B' who heard this appeal, the following question has been referred to me as third member under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 900 received by the assessee as City Compensatory Allowance can be assessed as income in the hands of the assessee in the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 2. The facts relevant for this controversy are that the assessee, who is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, filed his returns of income for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, showing the city compensatory allowance of Rs. 900 received by him in Part III of the return, as being exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act. The ITO completed the assessments under Section 143(1) of the Act but, in the process, he treated the city compensatory allowance as part of the assessee's salary for both the years.3. Instead of seeking a ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. Indian Drugs and Pharm ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR134(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. The question raised in this reference is somewhat interesting and perhaps a little novel, but we have come to the conclusion that the view taken by the Tribunal was substantially correct. The reference arises in the following circumstances. 2. The respondent-assessed, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,, is a Government undertaking promoted to start the manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals. The assessment year in question is the year 1965-66, the corresponding previous year being the year which ended on March 31, 1965. It is common ground that during the previous year the factory building of the assessed was in the process of construction and the plant and machinery were in the process of installation. The business had not been set up and none of the units had commenced production. 3. During the previous year, the assessed had certain types of miscellaneous receipts. It supplied tender forms regarding construction and erection of plant and machinery to contrac...
Harprashad and Co. Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi280; [1983]54CompCas407(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi575
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) 1. The most important question involved is as to under what circumstances leave to defend should be given under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') as it stands after the amendment by Act No. 104 of 1976. Then the question involved is as to whether in the present case leave to defend should be given or not. (2) The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 22,27,000 from Allahabad Bank, defendant No. I on the basis of a guarantee of defendant No. 1, which was initially valid up to 31st March 1979 and was subsequently extended to 31st October 1979 and finally to 31st December 1979. (3) There is no dispute in respect of some of the facts. The plaintiff, by an agreement dated July 13, 1977 contracted to supply various items of railway accessories to Iranian State Railways, Iran. Interalia, the plaintiff had to supply 6244 M.T. (15,12,000 pieces) of 'base plates' under that agreement. Plaintiff was approached by M/s. Kumardh...
Bal Krishan Julka Vs. K.L. Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi19; 20(1981)DLT383; 1981(2)DRJ254
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here in after called 'the Act') is directed against the order of eviction dated 25th October, 1980 passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground cover (2) In this revision petition, the petitioner submits that the evidence of the respondent-landlord was recorded without administering any oath and thereforee the Controller was in error in taking into consideration the evidence so recorded. The statement of the respondent-landlord was recorded on 6th March, 1980 and it appears that no oath was administered to him. The remaining statement was recorded on 10th April, 1980 but on that date the Controller administered him the oath. Learned counsel submits that statement without oath or solemn affirmation is useless, is of no value and cannot be looked into and, thereforee, he submits that no order of eviction can be passed against t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »