Delhi Court November 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.
Kaushal Diwan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD432(Delhi)
1. This penalty appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 23-9-1980 of the Commissioner.2. The assessee is an individual. Facts are that on 24-3-1977, the assessee entered into a contract for supply of goods/services to a certain party for Rs. 1,78,205. Under the provisions of Section 285A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the assessee was required to furnish to the ITO concerned by 23-4-1977, particulars in Form No. 52, as prescribed under Rule 120 of the Income-tax Rules. The assessee failed to do so. On the other hand, he supplied to the ITO requisite information only on 6-9-1980, i.e., after a delay of 1220 days. Under the circumstance, the Commissioner initiated against the assessee proceedings for penalty Under Section 285A(2). The only plea raised by the assessee before the Commissioner was that the aforesaid contract was the first contract entered into by the assessee and that he was not aware of the legal requirement as to furnishing of information i...
Suresh Kumar Sanghi and 0rs. Vs. Amit Kumar Sanghi and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ186
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) The firm Sanghi Motors is constituted of seven partners and the business of automobile dealings. It is also holding franchise/ dealership of M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. for the distribution and sale of jieps and F.C. Trucks for the areas of Union Territory of Delhi, Chandigarh, Haryana and Punjab. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are stated to form one group and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as the other group in this partnership. The latter, however, it is alleged attempted to undermine the partnership business and succeeded in obtaining cancellation of franchise/dealership of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. They also attempted to obstruct the operation of the bank accounts of the firm at different places and refused to sign the requisite bank papers which had been render- red necessary because of rise in price of vehicles. It was latter that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 succeeded in getting the said Franchise/ dealciship restored.(2) The present suit ...
Ghamandi Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1982
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT170; 1984RLR3
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) The Petitioner was prosecuted by Police Station Patel Nagar for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Delhi Gambling Act. He along with one Joginder Chawla was apprehended on 6/08/1981 at 5 p.m. and was arrested by the Sub-Inspector on the allegations that they were playing cards by staking money in a public park near Satyam Cinema in Patel Nagar. It was alleged that the petitioner and his accomplice were playing the game of Flash and that in the process of laying a raid to apprehend the accused they threw the three cards held by each on the heap of the undistributed cards and mixed the money in the stake money. The police officer took into possession the 52 playing cards and the total amount of Rs. 12.00 and that the accused thus committed an offence under section12 of the Delhi Gambling Act by playing the game of Flash in public place.(2) It appears that two accused were produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 7.8.1981 where they pleaded gu...
D.N. Srivastva Vs. Parthajoy Das and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes248; 1983(4)DRJ224; 1983RLR65
Leila Seth, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for quashing the proceedings instituted against the petitioner in case No. 1456-C of 1979 pending in the court of Mr. M.L. Mehta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The matter is an offshoot of the volatile 'foreigners issue in Assam.2. The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Police Service. When the petition was filed, he was the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Nowgong, Assam. However, at the relevant time he was the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Gauhati, Assam.3. On 31st December, 1979, Parthajoy Das, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Barpeta, Assam. The complainant pertained to the action taken in the early hours of 10th December, 1979 by the petitioner and respondents 3, 4, and 5 ; when respondent No. 1 and a crowd of 1500 to 2)00 persons were trying to prevent Begum Abida Ahmed from filing her nomination papers as a Lok Sabha candid...
Pioneer Consolidated Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Indian Turpentine and RosIn ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas509(Delhi)
Sachar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned single judge dated May 6, 1982, by which a petition filed by the respondents for winding up of the appellant company has been admitted and citation was directed to be issued. The appeal was admitted and publication of citation stayed by our admission order. 2. Broadly, the case of the respondent company was that the appellants were their agents for supply of goods, which were manufactured by the respondents. It was claimed that over a sum of Rs. 43 lakhs was due which it was said was also to be found reflected in the books of account of the appellant company. The further case was that no business of the appellant company was being carried on excepting shipping brokerage and hardly to the extent of a couple of lakhs of rupees a year. The liability of the company was said to be Rs. 25 lakhs as against the small share capital of Rs. 1 lakh and 24 thousand. The plea being that even the substratum of the company was no l...
Lachhman Dass Deceased and ors. Vs. Veer Finance Company and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi397; 23(1983)DLT231; 1983RLR109
Leila Seth, J.(1) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Mr. S.C. Ahuja, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 17th November, 1970. It raises an interesting point pertaining to the question of limitation under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (to be referred to in short as 'the Act') read with Article 119 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (2) The facts and dates arc not disputed. On 4th October, 1965, M/s. Veer Finance Co., respondent No. I, filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act. On 10th November, 1965, the arbitrator filed the award. Notices were issued on various dates but were not served on the appellant. The case wa adjourned from time to lime but service could not be effected. Thereafter, the court ordered substituted service on, inter alia, the appellant. It ordered that service be effected by publication in 'Ekta Sandesh'. The publication having been made, the court passed a decree ex parte in terms of the award, on 13th May, 196...
Lal Biak Sanga Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes517; 23(1983)DLT144; 1983(4)DRJ182; 1983RLR5
M.L. Jain, J.(1) On 9-9-1981 at about 1.30 p m. the accused Lal Biak Sanga and his sister Roshngi of Ramblum, Mizoram, were seen coming from the Maurya Hotel in New Delhi each carrying a rexin bag. They were apprehended by the Cbi and upon search of the bags 500gms. of contraband heroin was recovered from each of them. The accused disclosed further that another packet was lying in house No. 556, Sector Ix, R.K. Puram, of an Under Secretary in the Ministry of defense, where the accused was staying. So at his information and instance, another 22 gms. of heroin was recovered from a packet discovered in the said house. Kanwal Kishore Gupta (Public Witness 1) was an independent witness and supported the prosecution case. The recovery of heroin in R.K. Puram House was even admitted by the accused. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner under section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 on 17-2-1982. He was sentenced to und (2) It was urged on behalf of the petitioner tha...
Avtar Krishan Bhatnagar Vs. Kanwal Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT275; 1983(4)DRJ140; 1983RLR14
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. (1) This is a tenalt's appeal from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated November 4, 1978.(2) The landlord- respondent filed an application for eviction against the tenant-appellant on two grounds. One was the ground of non-payment of rent under clausc(a) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). The other was that the tenant had been allotted a residence. This is ground under clausc(h) of Section 14(1) of the Act. The Additional Rent Controller by orderated November 5, 1977 decided the ground of allotment of residence to the tenant against the landlords On the ground of nonpayment of rent he held that the tenant was in arrears of rent. But this being the first default he held that the tenant was entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act So he allowed him to deposit the arrears of rent within one month failing which he was to be evicted. lf he com plied with his order, then he was not to be evicted. Another question regarding...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. Rukmani Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Del)358; [1982]142ITR41(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This is a consolidated reference under the Wealth-tax Act relating to the six assessment years 1965-66 to 1970-71. The reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. It arises out of the wealth-tax assessments made on Smt. Rukmani Devi for the above assessment years. A common question of law has been referred for all the assessment years which runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that ornaments made of gold, silver, platinum and any precious metals which are not studded with precious of semi-precious stones would be exempt from wealth-tax under section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, up to the 31st March, 1972 ?' 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the facts and contentions since the question referred to us is covered by an earlier decision of this court (to which one of us has been a party) in W.T. Rs. 20 to 23/74, in the case of CWT v. Smt. S...
Gaon Sabha Budhela and anr. Vs. Dharam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1982
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT394
Leila Seth, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th November, 1971 passed by Mr. C.D. Vashishta, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, affirming the Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 2nd April, 1970. (2) These are the facts, Mr. Dharam Singh, the Plaintiff-respondent, instituted a suit against the appellants, Gaon Sabha Budhela and the Union of India and prayed that the order of Mr. P.N. Gupta, Revenue Assistant, Delhi dated 21st May, 1968 in case No. 610 of 1967 be declared illegal and without jurisdiction. (3) Mr. Dharam Singh was a proprietor in village Budhela and had shamlat deh rights prior to 1953-54 when the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (to be referred to in short as 'the Act') came into force. He also had a residential house in the said village. The said house is, admittedly, located inside the 'laldora'. i.e. the village abadi. In front of this house, there is a raised platform measuring 64 sq. yards. According to Mr. Dharam Singh, this p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »