Delhi Court December 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. P.N.B. Finance Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)4ITD665(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a limited company which was formerly carrying on banking business in the name of 'Punjab National Bank Ltd.'. The name of the company was changed to 'P.N.B. Finance Limited' as per fresh certificate of Incorporation dated 4-3-1976, issued by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana, New Delhi.2. The President of India promulgated the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, on 19-7-1969 and it came into force from that very day. Under the Ordinance, the entire undertaking of the Punjab National Bank Ltd. stood transferred to the corresponding new bank, viz., Punjab National Bank. The Ordinance was replaced by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, which was retrospectively effective from 19-7-1969. Under this Act, the amount of compensation for the entire undertaking was fixed at Rs. 10.20 crores. The difference between the compensation of Rs. 10.20 crores and the paid-up capital, viz., Rs. 8.2...
Modi Charitable Fund Society Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1982
Reported in: (1983)5ITD151(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee, Modi Charitable Fund Society (Registered), Modi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, assessed in the status of an 'association of persons', is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the assessment order by the ITO holding that since one of the main objects of the assessee-society was education, it (the assessee-society) was not entitled to the exemption in respect of its income for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1977-78 for which the previous year ended 31-3-1977.The Commissioner (Appeals) also agreed with the ITO that the assessee, as in the past, carried on the insurance agency business and other main object of the assessee-society was of general public utility. The activity for profit in the shape of the said business would come in the way of granting exemption to the assessee under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2 to 5. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 6. Comi...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)LC154DTri(Delhi)
1. The goods which are the subject matter of these proceedings are described as "Forged Stubs". They are stated to be required for fixing the boilers manufactured by the appellants. It is stated that the tubes leading from the boilers would, in turn, be attached to these "stubs".The goods are made of an alloy of steel, and it has been stated that this is an alloy specially chosen for use where high pressures are met with.2. The appellants are claiming the benefit of the conecssional rate of duty, in terms of Notification No. 350-Cus., dt. 2-8-1976, which refers to "parts required for the purpose of the initial setting up, or for the assembly or manufacture, or any article falling under...". The Schedule to the said Notification lists several Headings of the Customs Tariff Schedule. Any part required for the initial setting up, or for the assembly or manufacture of any article falling under these Readings is eligible for the concessional rate of duty, subject to fulfilment of certain o...
Avinash Chander Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ595; 23(1983)DLT214; 1983(4)DRJ356; 1983RLR104
ORDER1. The petitioner was facing a trial before Mr. T. S. Oberoi, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges and adjourned the case for recording of the prosecution evidence. Two more cases were pending against him in the court of Mr. R. C. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge. The case which was pending before Mr. Oberoi was transferred by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 4-1-1982 to the court of Mr. R. C. Jain. The petitioner made an application to the learned Sessions Judge that in the face of S. 409 the case pending in the court of the one Additional Sessions Judge could not be transferred to the court of another Additional Sessions Judge because the trial had already begun. Relying upon my decision in Suresh Kumar v. State, : 19(1981)DLT212 , the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application on 16-11-1982 stating that the transfer was ordered under S. 408 and not under S. 409, Cr.P.C. This order is under challenge in this petition. It i...
State Trading Corporation and anr. Vs. Harsha Tractors Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi263
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) This is an appeal from a judgment of a learned single judge of this court making an award a rule of court and passing a decree in terms thereof, after rejecting an application made by the present appellant's to have it set aside on various grounds. The award is a nonepeaking award passed by Broad of three arbitrators deciding certain disputes that had arisen between the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the STC') and its subsidiary, the Projects and Equipments Corporation India Ltd. (''the PEC') on the one hand (who are the appellants before us) and M/s Harsha Tractors Ltd. (the respondent company). The award being a non-speaking award, learned counsel for the appellants sought to make out that it was vitiated by an error apparent on its face and also by judicial misconduct in that certain vital disputes arising between the parties have not been considered by the arbitrators at all and certain documents vital for the considerati...
J.S. Sood Vs. Saawan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi273; 23(1983)DLT326; 1983(4)DRJ345; 1983RLR318
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) A very short question arises for consideratiom in this appeal. The appeal is from an order of the learned Judge on the original side by which he dismissed an application filed by the appellant under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.(2) On 21-8-1979 the appellant entered into a financing agreement with the respondent. This agreement contained an arbitration clause in respect of disputes arising under the agreement. Clauses 10 and 18 of the agreement provided, inter alia, that all disputes arising out of the agreement shall be referred to, and decided by, Sri Manohar Singh Bist, sole arbitrator. The clauses clearly state that Sri Bist was an employee of the appellant but purported to declare that the respondent had absolute confidence in his integrity and that it was, indeed, at the respondent's insistence that Sri Bist was being named sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under the agreement between the parties.(3) It may be mentioned that, under the above ...
Jagdish Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Agra Aerial Taxi Service and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT251; 1983(4)DRJ324; 1983RLR197
Sultan Singh, J. (1) In this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), the appellant-landlord challenges the jadgment and order dated 19th September, 1979 of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing his application for eviction of the respondents under clauses (b), (c) (j) & (k)of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. (2) The Additional Controller by judgment dated 6th September; 1976 has passed an order for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. He had negatived the grounds under clauses (c) & (j). The appellant had not pressed the ground under clause (k). The appellant now claims eviction only under claused (b) (c) of the- proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. 1. Briefly the case of the appellant under clauses (b) & (c) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act is that he filed the eviction application on 6th April, 1968 alleging that Agra Aerial Taxi Service (respondent No. 1) and Harcharan Singh Subedar, (respondent No. 2) Proprie...
Mohinder Singh Vs. Jagan Nath Bansal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ332; 1983RLR230
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The tenant in this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Cotrol Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 17th August, 1979 confirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 7-4-77 passing an order of eviction against him under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. On 23-4-73 Jagan Nath Bansal, respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction of Mohinder Singh, appellant-tenant from Shop No. 147 Pana Uddian, Bara Bazar, Narela. The respondent alleged that the appellant was his tenant in front portion of the said shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 75.00 . The grounds of eviction pleaded in para 18(a) of the application read as under :- '18(A)(1)Nonpayment of rent w.e.f. 13-2-1971 to 13-4-1973 @ Rs. 75.00 per month i.e. Rs. 1950.00 out of which the respondent paid Rs. 100.00 only on 7-9-1971 now Rs. 1850.00 is due from him. 2. Sub-letting to Shri Har Nath. 3. Damaging the shutter causing substantial loss to...
National Assn. of Motion Pictures Exhibitors, Delhi Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi691
Sachar, J. (1) Does Delhi Administration lack competency in law to fix rates for admission to Cinematograph exhibition in Cinema houses notwithstanding the extension of the Punjab Cinemas Regulations Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be called the Punjab Act 1952), as at present in force in State of Haryana to Delhi by means of notification dated 21-11-1980 iss,ued by the Central Government under Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws Act), 1950 (hereinafter to be called the 1950 Act) is the main question that calls for determination in this batch of writ petitions. (2) The points in all these writ petitions are similar and broadly we shall be taking the fact from the representative petition to which the counsel for the petitioners referred namely Cw 959182. It is a common case that the decision in the present writ petition will also govern the decisions in the other writ petitions. (3) Article 245 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the terr...
Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi42
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In this writ petition the question which arises for consideration is as to what is the full scope and effect of the term 'inter-conneeted undertaking', as defined in Section 2(g) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). (2) Petitioner No. 1. is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1930. Petitioners 2 to 4 are its Directors. A number of undertakings, carrying on different businesses, are owned by petitioner No. 1. One of the undertakings of petitioner No. 1 is, inter alia, engaged in the marketing of paints. The said Company also acts as selling agents and|or agents of various other Companies. (3) Petitioner No. 1 also has two subsidiary companies, namely, Tangpani Tea Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as T.T.C.) in which it holds 53 per cent (approximately) of the equity capital and the Jutilibari Tea Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as J.T.C.) in which it holds 56 per cent (approximate...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »