Delhi Court December 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.
Himmat Singh Sandhu Vs. Joginder Singh Sandhu, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ294; 1983RLR175
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is an application by Mrs. Vanita Sandhu wife of Joginder Singh Sandhu. defendant No. 1, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being imp leaded as a party in the suit.(2) To appreciate the contentions raised in the application, brief facts of the suit may be noticed.(3) The plaintiff herein, Himmat Singh Sandhu, has filed this Suit against his father, Joginder Singh Sandhu, and his sisters Guramrit Kaur Sandhu and Miachelle Sandhu, for partition of the joint family property and for rendition of accounts. It is his case that his father, two sisters and himself constitute a joint Hindu family. It is averred that plaintiff's mother expired in a road accident on 29th December, 1979. She was also a member of the joint Hindu family. The plaintiff and his father are co-parceners. The details of the immovable property are given in paragraph 2 of the plaint. It is stated that besides that property the family also is possessed of lot of jewellery a...
Urmila Devi Vs. Devinder Kumar Parcha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1982
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ291
Leila Seth, J.(1) This is a wife's appeal against the judgment and order, dated 7th July, 1982, passed by Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional District Judge, Delhi in H.M.A. Case No. 113 of 1981, dissolving the marriage of the parties under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (to be referred to in short as 'the Act').(2) These are the facts Ms. Urmila Devi. the appellant and Mr. Devinder Kumar, the respondent were married on 3rd May, 1977 at Delhi. The marriage was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu religious rites. After marriage, the parties resided at Shahdara.(3) On 23rd March, 1978, Urmila Devi developed some abdominal pain and Devinder Kumar took her to Safdarjung Hospital. It appears, that she was pregnant and miscarried or aborted there on the same day. On 24th March, 1978, she was discharged from the hospital.(4) According to Devinder Kumar, he wanted to bring her home from the hospital, but she insisted on going to her father's house at Moti Bagh. In the circumstance...
Shagoon Emporium Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD376(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19-1-1979 of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. 1974-75 is the assessment year concerned. Financial year is the previous year. The assessee is a HUF. Assessment was completed by the ITO as per order dated 12-9-1977 determining total income at Rs. 2,54,531. The said assessment was still pending when Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), came to be newly inserted effective from 1-1-1976. Returned income was Rs. 24,250. As the ITO proposed to assess total income at a figure of Rs. 1,31,081, namely, with a difference of more than Rs. 1 lakh, he, on 18-3-1977, sent the draft order to the assessee as contemplated under Section 144B(1). The assessee's objections to the said draft order were received by the ITO on 13-4-1977 and the same were forwarded by him to the IAC, who in turn, sent requisite directions on 5-9-1977.3. It transpires that some months after the receipt of objections under Section 144B throu...
income-tax Officer Vs. Surjan Singh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD438(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a HUF and it owned lands measuring 31 bighas 10 1/3 biswas in the village known as Nangal Dewat in the Union territory of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, paid compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,24,677. The assessee claimed higher compensation in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not known as to the further progress of the litigation in relation to the amount of compensation. However, the ITO while dealing with the assessment of the assessee took into account the amount claimed by the assessee as higher compensation for the purpose of finding out the taxability of the surplus on account of compensation received by the assessee, under the head 'Capital gains'. In the absence of any details as to the cost of the acquisition of the land, the value of the land was estimated at Rs. 1,500 per bigha as on 1-1-1954. The assessee's objections have not been accepted in regard to the assessability of the compensation amount and that ...
Raj Rani Vs. Subhash Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT240
Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge by which he affirmed thejudgment of the trial court, dismissed the application filedby the appellant (mother) under Section 7 and 25 of theGuardian and Wards Act for custody of the child (son).(2) The parties were married on 23-11-1976. A malechild was born to them in November 1977. Unfortunatelyright since the beginning the parties have not had a happymarried life. According to the parties they are at varianceas to at what particular point of time the wife left the husband's house and came back and again went away. Thehusband's case being that for the first time she left the housesometime in March 1978, (leaving the child behind). Butafter a couple of months, she came back and staved on till19-3-1979 when she is said to have left again. Ail this timethe child is said to have been with the father. She is saidto have come back in July 1979 and stayed on till 8-5-1980,when she is said to have gone away leaving ...
Kishore Kumar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes940; 23(1983)DLT121
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This order will dispose of two petitions Cr. M. (M) 100/82 and 461/82. (2) Kasturi lal Lamba and Tirath Dass, deceased, who were doing sorne business collectively in Karachi came to Delhi after partition. They were allotted an evacuee property Nos. 1467, 1546, 1579 and 1585, situated on Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. They started the Mewa Biscuit Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd. therein. Some portion of property No. 1546 the Society rented out to Laxmi Commercial Bank, and the remaining portion was rented out to Hindustan Times limited for use as a godown. Upon proceedings instituted by one Mst. Sultan Bi, the said property was released to her on 7-12-1960. She entered, into an agreement on 16-10-1967 with Tirath Dass and Kasturi lal Lamba agreeing to sell the said lot of properties to them for one lakh of rupees. The money was paid by their partnership firm Mewa Hotel, Ghandni Chowk, another venture started by them on 13-7-1960. One sale deed was executed in th...
Vijay Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ337
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are four teachers. They are M. Sc. in Physics. All of them got themselves registered with Employment Exchange. A number of P.G.T. (Post Graduate Teachers) Posts fell vacant in 1969 in the subject of Physics. The Delhi Administration and the Director of Education, respondents I and 2, required the Employment Exchange to sent them names of suitable candidates for appointment to P.G.T. Posts. The Employment Exchange sponsored the names of 204 candidates in answer to this request. But only 100 candidates turned up. Their degrees and diplomas were scrutinised. 55 candidates out of these 100 were called for interview. Only 50 appeared. They were interviewed and their merit was assessed with reference to the percentage of marks secured by them in different examinations. The Staff Selection Board, after interviewing them, prepared a panel of 1969-70. In this panel the names of 12 candidates who ...
Chander Mukhi Vs. Bhagat Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT309
Leila Seth, J.(1) This appeal by Chander Mukhi is directed against the Judgment and Order of Mr. R. Dayal, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dated August 27, 1977 rejecting her petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The appellant, Chander Mukhi, is resident of village Rithala in the Union Territory of Delhi. The respondent Bhagat Ram, is resident of village Tikri Khurd near Alipur, Delhi. (3) According to Ghander Mukhi, she was married to Bhagat Ram on 18th May, 1964 in Rithala and the marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites. Thereafter, she went to village Tikri Khurd and stayed with Bhagat Ram for four days. She, then, returned to her parents' home in village Rithala. Bhagat Ram never came to fetch her. Pressure was brought upon him through the village Panchayat but he still did not come. In these circumstances, she submits that Bhagat Ram should be held to have withdrawn from ...
Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. Mini Sea Food and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ299; 1983RLR202
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) M/S. Raunaq Intetnational Ltd., petitionet herein, enterrid into an agreement dated March 8, 1977 with M/s. Mini Sea .Foods respondent no. I for promotion of export of sea foods to U.S.A., Canada, all European countries, Australia, Japan, etc. for sale/resale in the aforesaid territories. The said agreement contains an arbitration agreement between the parties reading as follows : 'INcase of any dispute of difference arising out of this agreement or out of any matter connected therewith, the same shall be referred for adjudication to the sole arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940. The arbitration proceedings shall take place in Delhi and in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940. Any court proceedings shall take place in Delhi and in accordande with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act of 1940. Any Court proceedings will also be confined to the jurisdiction of Delhi, to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›