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.
Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD525(Delhi)
1. These are four appeals-two by the assessee and the other two by the revenue, involving some common issues. We, therefore, propose to dispose of all the four appeals by a composite order.2. The assessee is carrying on the business of publishing a daily newspaper which has substantial circulation. The assessee-company was functioning from 1937 in a rented building in North Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. It belonged to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). In view of the expansion of the activities, it was found that the accommodation was not sufficient. Further, in accordance with the lease agreement entered into with the LIC of India, the company had to vacate the rented premises by 30-9-1969 and as there was no provision for further extension of time, it was proposed that a building should be constructed in 18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi for housing the press of the assessee-company. At this stage, it might be relevant to mention that the LIC of India agreed t...
Govind Gopal and ors. Vs. Banwari Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi323; 23(1983)DLT187; 1983(4)DRJ195; 1983RLR11
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The petitioners plaintiffs by this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenge the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi dated 28th November, 1981 directing them to pay court fees on the amount of Rs. 23,668.00 .(2) Briefiv the facts are that Smt Bimla Ruli alias Kishna Kumari had deposited Certain amount in S.B. Account No 373/265 and Recurring Time Deposit Account No. 51/7230 in the Port Office at Najafgarh. She died on 22nd October, 1977. Gobind Gopal plaintiff No. I is her husband while the plaiiniffs No. 2 to 7 arc her sons and daughters. At the time of opening the said two acconiiti, it appears, Banwari Lal defendant was shown as her nominee in the said accounts. The plaintiffj on 20th November, 1978 filed the pi'ei-ent suit for declaration that the nomination in favor of the defendant was illegal, that they alone being the legal heirs and representa- tives were entitled to receive the amount lying to the credit o...
India Exports House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J.R. Vohra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi167; 23(1983)DLT23; 1983(4)DRJ56
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The petitioners M/s. India Export House Private Limited allege that they took on rent the property bearing No. 34, Paschmi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, on 1.5.1979 from the respondent J.R. Vohra and paid the rent for May in advance. The respondent filed a petition under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). But the Additional Rent Controller by an order of 2 5.1979 declined the permission because the letting was for commercial-cum-residential purposes. The respondent again filed a petition under section 21 of the Act which was fixed before Mr. J.D.Kapur, the then Rent Controller. The respondent concealed from him the earlier rejection of a similar application and thus com- mitted fraud on the court and maneuvered to obtained permission under section 21 of the Act on 10.5.1979. The tenancy in the aforesaid circumstances could not be considered a limited tenancy. Yet the respondent filed an execution application before the Rent Controller on 1.7.19...
J.S. Bhalla Vs. G.J. Bhawnani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT125; 1983(4)DRJ200
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The appellant in this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as 'the Act' challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 2nd August,1980 a ffirming in appeal the judgment of the Additional Controller dated 28th February, 1979 passing an order of eviction against him on the ground mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. Briefly the facts arc that the respondent G. J. Bhawnani through his wife as attorney filed, a petition for eviction alleging that the appellant was inducted as a tenant in his property 5/16, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi with effect from 19th June, 1971 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400.00 excluding water and electricity charges, that the premises were let for residential purposes and were required for the residence of himself and his wife that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation, that he was the owner of the premises, that he wa...
Jackson Chowkidar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi558; 1983(4)DRJ377
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This petition is filed by three workmen (Chowkidars) working with the Garrison Engineer (North) M.E.S., Air Force Palam, Delhi Cantt raising an issue of great public importance regarding suspension of industrial adjudication in the Central Government Labour Court for the last nine months. The reason for suspension is that for about a year no Presiding Officer is appointed to the said court by Union of India. Admittedly, there are about 1600 cases pending in the said court. The petitioners filed a petition in the said court for over-time wages on 3-7-1978. The evidence was recorded and the arguments were completed on 28-10-1981 and the orders were reserved by the Presiding Officer but thereafter for want of the Presiding Officer the final order could not be pronounced.(2) The Labour Court-cum-Tribunal is especially established for giving quick relief to the workers. The Socialist Republic of ours should not allow to create an impression in the working classes that the Di...
East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Shri Kishore Chand, Sales Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC86(Delhi)
1. For the reasons already given by us in (C.W. No. 3044 of 1982) East India Hotels Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [1983] 53 STC 85 and (C.W. No. 979 of 1982) Claridges Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [1983] 53 STC 83 which we need not repeat, we quash the impugned order imposing penalty and thereby preventing the refund to which the petitioner is legitimately entitled. 2. We are quashing the penalty imposed because we are of the view that the penalty has been imposed for no other reason than to somehow prevent refund to which the petitioner had become entitled by virtue of assessment orders. It is quite apparent that the motivating factor was what we have stated above as the amounts by and large go inside. Further we are of the view that it has not been shown that there is any means read which could be attributed to the petitioner and thereforee the question of levy of penalty does not arise. We, thereforee, make the rule absolute, quash the order the penalty and direct the refund as...
East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC85(Delhi)
1. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are claiming the refund on the basis of the assessment orders in which they have been found entitled to refund by an appropriate authority who had passed regular orders of assessment. In this situation we are unable to appreciate what is there for further consideration when no defect in the application for refund has been pointed out. To us it appears that the respondents are activated by the consideration that the petitioners have collected sales tax from their customers and would, without refunding the same to those customers, get the amount in its pocket. Whether the petitioner refunds to its customers or not and whether those customers claim refund from the petitioner or not is not an aspect which comes-into consideration in making payments of amounts found to be deposited in excess by virtue of proper assessment orders. We have already taken this view in (C.W. No. 979 of 1982) Claridges Hotels (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [1983] 53 ST...
income-tax Officer Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD466(Delhi)
1. This appeal is by the revenue. The assessee to the appeal is Minerals & Metals Trading Corporationn. of India Ltd., New Delhi (MMTC), a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The year of assessment involved is 1977-78 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1977.2. Grounds (ii) and (iii) raised by the revenue are in the following terms : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in- (ii) allowing a reduction of Rs. 8,76,215 out of the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 10,51,000 being the contribution towards an approved granting to be administered by the LTC, in spite of the fact that the provisions of Secton 40A(7) were not complied with ; and (iii) directing that the depreciation on 'pay loaders' which is not an item of each moving machinery should be allowed at 30 per cent as against 10 per cent allowed by the Income-tax Officer.At the hearing it was an admitt...
Devi Dayal Dixit Vs. Rashtriya Electric and Engineering Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi432; 23(1983)DLT119; 1983(4)DRJ181; 1983RLR9
Goswamy, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th October, 1981 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby the respondents' appeal was allowed and he was imp leaded as a party under Order I rule 10 Civil Procedure Code . in the eviction petition filed by the petitioner here in. The petitioner landlord filed a petition for eviction against one Arjun Dass with respect to the property in dispute. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the present respondent filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being imp leaded as a party. It was alleged in the application that the suit premises, i.e. Shop No. 1831, Electric Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was taken on rent for a branch office of the firm M/s. Navyug Trading Corporation at Delhi and the rent deed was executed in the name of the said firm. It is further alleged that another firm by the name of Power Line Construction and Equipment Company was a si...
Bhajan Lal Vs. Madan Lal Bajaj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi555; 1983(4)DRJ191
Snltan Siagh, J.(1) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 29th April, 1974 affirming on appeal the Judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 27th September, 1973 passing an order of eviction against the appellant.(2) The appellant above named had also filed another second appeal (R.S.A. No. 221 of 1973) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 31st May, 1973 affirming on appeal the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 22nd February, 1973 passing a decree for the recovery of Rs. 2750.00 with costs against him on account of arrears of rent. In these two appeals, the only question for decision is : Whether the appellant or the firm Bhajan Lal Harcharan Lal was inducted as tenant under the respondent with respect to the suit premises. This...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »