Delhi Court October 1982 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Vinay Bharat Ram
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD263(Delhi)
1. This group of eight appeals concerns the assessments of one individual, viz., Vinay Bharat Ram. The appeals for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75 (both inclusive) are the revenue's appeals.The contention in these appeals is that the AAC erred in deleting the following Items of income from the assessment of the assessee-individual on the ground that the said income belonged to the HUF of which the assessee was a member :________________________________________________Date of Asstt. Income deleted________________________________________________18-9-1975 1971-72 30,836 4,212 2. The remaining four appeals, viz., for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79 are by the assessee. The grievance in these appeals is also common. The objection taken is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the finding of the ITO that the following items of income were rightly assessable in the hands of the assessee-individual for these years and not in the hands of his HUF :_________________...
Autocrat Tours Vs. Arjan Dev
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT201
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) By means of this order, two applications, one of the respondent which is C.M.. 784/80 and the other filed by the appellant (G.M. 1238/80) are being decided. (2) The appellant is a tenant of premises bearing No. 16, Todar Mal Lane, New Delhi at plot No. 58, Block 205-G New Delhi, Arjun Dev, respondent is the owner of the same. The respondent brought a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. That petition was dismissed on 15th February, 1975 by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Additional Rent Controller. The respondent went in appeal which was accepted by the Rent Control Tribunal and eviction of the appellant was directed on both grounds on September 30, 1977. The appellant filed appeal (SAO No. 204/77). Along with the Memorandum of appeal the appellant filed an application for stay of eviction proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant did not file certified copies of the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal as...
Ram Asre Darbari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT137; 1983RLR159
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner Dr. R. A. Darbari was a Surgeon in the Willingdon Hospital Nursing Home in New Delhi in 1967-68. On 19-11-1968 one Nairn Ahmed sent a complaint to the Additional Health Secretary, New Delhi that he and the petitioner were residents of Mainpuri, U.P. Nairn's mother had fallen and broken her bone. On approaching Dr. Darbari, he advised him to bring his mother to Delhi. Then the petitioner told him that Rs. 500 will have to be spent in the treatment of his mother. He gave that much money to Dr. Darbari. Dr. Darbari kept his mother for 15 days in the said hospital and then declared that she could not be treated there and offered to have her admitted in the Irwin Hospital. When he went to the Irwin Hospital. he demanded another Rs. 500 for the doctors in that hospital. Nairn talked to the doctors in the lrwin Hospital who told him that there was no need to make any payment because the treatment was free. The petitioner has taken money from other patients of t...
Bimla Devi Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas361(Delhi); 1983(4)DRJ236
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1009 to 1012 of 1980 and 1141 and 1669 of 1979 wherein the validity of some of the provisions of the High Denomination Banknotes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Demonetisation Act'), has been challenged. The petitioners are aggrieved because they have not been paid the exchange value of the high denomination notes which were held by them and which had been demonetized. 2. Apart from challenging the validity of ss. 7 and 8 of the Demonetisation Act, the petitioners are also aggrieved by the orders passed under the Demonetisation Act, declining to pay them the exchange value of the demonetized notes held by them. The reasons for this refusal vary from case to case and the petitioners' contention in this regard will be dealt with separately. 3. As Parliament was not then in session, the President promulgated the High Denomination Banknotes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1978, which came int...
Bimladevi Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi189
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1009 to 1012 of 1980 and 1141 and 1669 of 1979 wherein the validity of some of the provisions of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation Act') has been challenged. The petitioners arc aggrieved because they had not been paid the exchange value of the high denomination notes which were held by them and which had been demonetised.(2) Apart from challenging the validity of sections 7 and 8 of the demonetisation Act, the petitioners are also aggrieved by the orders, passed under the Demonetisation Act, declining to pay them the exchange value of the demonetised notes held by them. The reasons for this refusal vary from case to case and the petitioner's contention in this regard will be dealt with separately.(3) As the Parliament was not in session the President promulgated the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1978 which came into effect on 16th January, 1978. It is not necessary to r...
Shyamdev Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ208Del
ORDER1. In these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order of Delhi Administration passed on 30th July, 1979 (Annexure 'J') and the order of the Additional Commissioner of Police, Delhi passed on 22nd August, 1979 (Annexure K). The order of the Delhi Administration directed holding of departmental enquiry against the petitioners (and some other police officers) and the officers of the excise department under R. 16.42 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The enquiry was to be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down by the C.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1965. The order of the Additional Commissioner of Police purports to cancel the departmental proceedings held under R. 16.38(ii) ordered by him on 31st January, 1979. The main contention of the petitioners is that in the departmental proceedings held under R. 16.38(ii) of the Punjab Police Rules orders exonerating them were passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 12th July, 1979, and the second enquiry or...
Upender Kumar Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi611
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The Food Corporation of India was set upon 1-1-1965. Its activities were divided into zones and regions. The petitioner was appointed by the Corporation as Technical Assistant Grade Iii on 28-8-1966 in the North Zone District Office, Delhi. He was promoted to Grade Ii on 19-3-1968 and to Grade I on 7-5-1969. The Corporation by its circular of 7-8-1969 directed that the seniority of the employees of the Corporation shall be fixed according to length of service. Later on, the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation - 1971 (Regulations herein) were made with effect from 8-5-1971 Regulation 4 provided that each zone shall be on separate unit for purposes of appointment, seniority, promotion, reversion and retrenchment of the category Iii and category Ii posts. On 19-4-1972 the petitioner was promoted to officiate as Assistant Manager (Technical). The appointment order made it clear that he was being appointed on sheer ad hoc basis and he was liable to be reverted with...
Arya Shiksha Samiti Vs. Amar Nath and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT175
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act on behalf of a registered Society Arya Shiksha Samiti through its Secretary, Shri Prem Raj Sharma against Sh. Amar Nath and Sh. Kishore Lal for having violated the undertaking given to this court by Shri Kishore Lal to vacate certain premises by 26th February, 1981 and for failure to pay the rent for the period 17th January, 1972 till the end of May, 1976 within three months thereof and to pay future rent from June, 1976 by the 15th of next English calendar month. (2) The petition for contempt came to be filed in the following circumstances :- The petitioner-society filed a petition for eviction against Amar Nath and Kishore Lal under Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The case of the society was that these premises were required for furtherance of the activities of the society and on that ground the orders for ejectment were passed by Avadh Behari, J. on the statement of K...
Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1982
Reported in: 1983LC91D(Delhi); 1983(12)ELT292(Del)
Sachar, J. 1. This batch of petitions was heard together and will be decided by the common judgment. The counsel for the petitioners were agreed that the judgment in this petition will cover the other cases also. There are some extra points in the petitions i.e., C.W. 1108 and 1109/1982 relating to the import of Aluminum scrap and we shall deal with that separately later in the judgment. 2. These petitions challenge the levy of duty of customs and additional duty of Customs, under the Customs Act, 1962 (to be called Customs Act) and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (to be called Tariff Act) respectively. 3. The petitioners import brass scrap. Duty means a duty of Custom livable under the Act vide Section 2(15) of the Customs Act. Section 12 of the Customs Act provides that duty of Customs shall be levied at such rate as may be specified in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force for the goods imported or exported. Section 2 of the Tariff Act lays down that the...
Shamshad Begum Dar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi414
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This writ petition is filed by the Chairman of the Punjab Wakf Board against the order dated 11-11-1981 superseding the Board -and also against the order of the extension of time of the supersession, Punjab Wakf Board is a composite Board for the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh. This is the richest Wakf Board in India. The Board was constituted by nomination of eleven members an 11-8-1978. (2) Before the supersession of the Board a Show Cause Notice under Section 64(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 was issued on 3-10-1981. The said show cause notice reads as under : 'F. No. 4(13) [81-Wakf Government of India Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs (Legislative Department) New Delhi, 3rd October, 1981 Show Cause Notice Whereas it has come to the notice of the Central Government that the Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' : (i) has been unable to perform the duty imposed on it by or under the Wakf Act, 1954 (...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »