Delhi Court January 1982 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.
Bali Ram Sharma Vs. S.H.O. Police Station, Defense Colony and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1910; 1982(3)DRJ154; ILR1982Delhi395; 1982RLR331
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioner herein, Bali Ram Sharma, is seeking directions, first for cancellation for his history-sheet maintained by Police Station, defense Colony and secondly, that his name be struck off from Part II of the Surveillance Register (Register No. 10) maintained by the Police authorities of Delhi as per Chap. 23 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Delhi, (herein called 'the Rules'). 2. The petitioner is a citizen of India. He claims to be an agriculturist; he is assessed to income-tax as well as wealth-tax. He used to deal in antiques and handicrafts under the name and style of 'M/s. Sharma Antique & Fine Art' at E-18, South Extension Part II, New Delhi. According to him, he closed this business in the year 1974 after the promulgation of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. At present he claims to be looking after his agriculture farm at Chattarpur, Mehrauli. His wife Mrs. Sneh Lata Sharma, however, is running a shop of handicrafts at Jorbagh ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-iii Vs. Markanda Engineers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Del)155; ILR1982Delhi954; [1982]136ITR111(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This income-tax reference arises out of the assessment of a registered firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Markanda Engineers for the assessment year 1969-70 for which the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1969. The assessed is engaged in an industry covered by items 20 and 22 of the Fifth Schedule to the I.T. Act and was as such entitled to development rebate at 35% of the actual cost of the new machinery or plant installed before April 1, 1970, and wholly used for the purpose of business under s. 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(a) as against the normal rate of 20% available in the case of other assesseds in respect of a like asset under s. 33(1)(b)(B)(iv)(a) of the Act. The deduction towards development rebate is to be allowed in respect of the previous year in which the machinery or plant is installed or where such machinery or plant is first put to use in the immediately succeeding year, then, in respect of that previous year. The grant of the deduct...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iv Vs. Pratap Singh of Nabha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi145
Ranganathan, J.1. Two questions have been referred to this court under s. 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961. They read as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 3,521 levied u/s. 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. It not the Tribunal's order vitiated in view of the amendment to section 275 brought by the Act 42 of 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971 ?' 2. The questions referred to us arise out of the assessment of Pratap Singh of Nabha for the assessment year 1965-66. The assessed had been served with a notice under s. 210 of the Act, raising a demand of advance tax of Rs. 1,09,122 payable in Installments as provided for in the section. The assessed, however, filed on March 15, 1965, an estimate under s. 212(3) estimating his income at Rs. 36,000 and stating that since the tax deducted at source was more than the tax payable on the total income as estimated, there was no liability to pay advanc...
Nirmala Devi Vs. Gopal Krishan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT326; 1982RLR207
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The petitioner by this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') challenges the judgment and order of the Senior Sub Judge dated 30th November, 1978 reversing the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 28th October, 1978, granting her leave to amend the plaint after reviewing his earlier order dated 31st August, 1978. (2) Briefly the facts are that Jodha Ram had three sons, namely, Partap Chand, Gopal Krishan (defendant No. 1) and Satpal (defendant No. 2). Smt.NirmalaDevi, plaintiff-petitioner is the widow of Partap Ghand. House No. 36-A and B, Block No. 80 in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was allotted to her in 1951 by the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi on payment of Rs. 20.00 per month as rent. She had been paying rent and eventually on payment of Rs. 9,782-31 towards the cost, interest, rent, ground rent arrears etc. the President of India executed a registered lease deed dated 28th May, 1968 in respect ...
Gurmukh Singh Vs. Locchmi Devi(D.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: 1982RLR281
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) Shri Gurmukh Singh, hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff', brought a suit for partition of 126, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. It was common ground between him and Smt. Lachhmi Devi, now deseased, that the said house belonged to them in equal shares.(2) Smt. Lachhmi Devi died. An application, (I.A. No. 1534/80) was filed by the plaintiff for bringing the L.R's of Smt. Lachhmi Devi on record. According to the plaintiff, as stated in the application, Smt. Lachhmi Devi left behind her husband Sh. Asa Singh Kochhar, two sons, Kulwant Singh and Parbjot Singh and five daughters Smt. Parkash Kaur, Smt. Pritam Kaur, Smt. Harbans Kaur, Smt. Rajinder Jeet Kaur and Smt. Baljit Kaur. Notice of that application was directed to be issued to heirs aforesaid. Sh. Asa Singh Kochhar and Parbjot Singh husband and one of the sons respectively of Smt. Lachhmi Devi appeared on 25.5.81. They stated that Smt. Lachhmi Devi left a will in favor of Parbjot Singh and that, thereforee, it was he...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pratap Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: [1982]138ITR27(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) Two questions have been referred to this court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They read as follows : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 3,521 levied u/s. 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Is not the Tribunal's order vitiated in view of the amendment to section 275 brought by Act 42 of 1970 with effect from 1-4-1971?'(2) The questions referred to us arise out of the assessment of Pratap Singh of Nabha for the assessment year 1965-66. The assessed had been served with a notice under section 210 of the Act raising a demand of advance tax of Rs. 1,89,122 payable in Installments as provided for in the section. The assessed, however, filed on 15-3-1965 an estimate under section 212(3) estimating his income at Rs. 36,000 and stating that since the tax deducted at source was more than the tax payable on the total income as estimated there was no liability to pay ...
Indian Tourism Development Corporation Vs. Delhi Administration and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi535; 1982LabIC1309; 1982(2)SLJ665(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) Whether the President of India while administering the Union Territory of Delhi under Article 239 of the Constitution of India could confer upon the Lt. Governor or Administrator of Delhi the powes and. functions of the 'State Government' within te meaning of and under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the moot question raised in C. W. Ps. 713 and 1472 of 1981. Another question raised is whether the delegation by the Central Government under Section 39 of the said Act of the powers of the 'State Government to the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration is ultra virus of its powers. (2) Under the Industrial Disoutes Act. 1947 (hereinafler called the Act), there is a broad division for the exercise of the powers in relation to various industrial and labour disputes and the powers are exercisable by the appropriate Government defined in Section 2(a) of the Act reading as follows : '(a) appropriate Government' means (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concernin...
Radhey Shyam Khanna Vs. Amar Nath Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT273
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) One of the tenants has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th July, 1978 of the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the tribunal has dismissed the appeal against the order of eviction which has been passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi. (2) One Dropati Devi was the landlady of House No. 673 Katra Ned, Delhi. A portion of the house on the ground floor and on the second floor was let out to Radhey Shyam, appellant herein and Shyam Sunder. The landlady filed an application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenants on the ground that she required the premises bona- fide for her own residence and for the residence of other members of her family dependent upon her and who had been living with her as members of one family. The members of the family referred to above included the landlady's two sons, namely, Prem Nath and Amar Nath and otheir respective families as well as a widow daughter-in-law of the landlady. (3) The tenan...
Vasu Dev Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT313; 1982(3)DRJ150
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, by an Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 4th November, 1981 and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and a fine of Rs.l,000.00 . In default of payment of fine, he has been awarded further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. However, half the amount of the fine, if and when realised, has been directed to be paid to the injured Kashmiri Lal by way of compensation. Feeling aggrieved he has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence.(2) The prosecution version succinctly is that on the night intervening 4th and 5th November, 1979, at about 11.15 P.M., Kashnoiri Lal, a vegetable seller in Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, was talking to Ashok Kumar, also a vegetable vendor in the same market in front of shop No.A-361, Subzi Mandi, which be.ongs to one Subhash. The appellant came overthere and stood closeby to Kashmiri Lal and Ashok Kumar. Kas...
P.S. Sundram Vs. S. Varshaswami
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1119; 21(1982)DLT252; 1982(3)DRJ138; 1982RLR321
ORDER1. A complaint under Sections 426, 430 of the Penal Code and under Sections 45 and 48(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was filed on 24th August, 1974, in the court of Magistrate by S. Vershaswami against his landlord P. S. Sundram, petitioner herein, on the allegation that the accused had cut off the supply of electricity and water in the tenanted premises on 5th June, 1974. 2. After recording preliminary evidence under S. 202 of the Criminal P.C. of the complainant, who appeared as PW 1, and three other wittiness on his behalf, the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 15th March, 1975, summoned the accused petitioner herein for an offence under S. 426 I.P.C. only. It was noticed in that order that the complainant did not press for the summoning of the accused under S. 430, I.P.C. and S. 45 of the D.R.C. Act. 3. The case of the complainant is that he was a tenant under the petitioner herein in the first floor of house No. C-25, South Extension Part I. New Delhi, since Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »