Delhi Court February 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.
Umesh Saxena and anr. Vs. Asharfi Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1982
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ545Del
C.M. Nayar, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated Oct. 4, 1990, of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Delhi, wherein the respondent Shri Goverdhan Dass, who is now represented by his legal representatives, was awarded compensation for the amount of Rs. 33600/- and imposition of penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the accident, till the dale of actual recovery. The learned Commissioner noticed that the appellant Umesh Saxena in his statement on oath had already admitted that the respondent Goverdhan Dass used to drive the car to take him to his office from his house and vise versa. He has also admitted that the respondent used to drive car to outstation, as well as, for the performance of his official duties, as manager of M/s. Milk Food Ltd. The averment of the appellant, Mr. Umesh Saxena that respondent Shri Goverdhan Dass, was employed by him in his personal capacity a...
Shan Elahi Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD16(Delhi)
1. Consequent on a difference of opinion between the two Members of the Delhi Bench 'A' of the Tribunal, who heard this appeal, the following question has been referred to me, as third Member, under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order under Section 154 dated 8-2-1978 for including the sum of Rs. 12,685 on account of disallowance under Section 40A(3) can be upheld legally? 2. The question, which has been referred, raises an interesting issue as to the period of limitation provided for in the first proviso to Section 40A(3) of the Act. The facts which are relevant for this reference can be briefly summarised as follows.3. The assessment year involved is 1971-72, for which the accounting year of the assessee ended on 31-3-1971. The assessment for that year was completed by the ITO on 21-8-1971. In the accounts of that year, which were maintained on the mercantile system of accounting, the assessee ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (iii) Vs. Roshan Dass Bri ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: [1982]137ITR816(Delhi)
Leila Sheth, J.1. The assessed is a registered firm dealing in the wholesale business of 'art' silk. During the assessment year 1970-71, the assessed purchased goods worth Rs. 86,002 from M/s. G.R. Co., Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The assessed paid for these purchases partly in cash and partly by issuing crossed cheques. The cash payments were as follow : Rs.1. 15-4-1969 4,5002. 21-7-1969 6,5003. 11-3-1969 4,5004. 26-8-1969 5,5005. 18-11 1969 4,000-----------24,5002. Section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act (to be referred to in short as 'the Act') was introduced in respect of which payment was made of a sum exceeding Rs.2,5000 otherwise than by a crossed cheque or a crossed bank draft. It was made applicable from April 1, 1969. However, certain exceptions were specified in rule 6DD of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 3. Before the ITO the assessed stated that the abovementioned cash payments should be treated as payments towards the old credit balance of Rs. 75,684 which was outstanding on April 1, 1969. But th...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Roshan Dass Brij Bhushan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi121; [1982]136ITR816(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) The assessed is a registered firm dealing in the wholesale business of 'art' silk. During the assessment year 1970-71, relevant previous year being the financial year 1969-70, the assessed purchased goods worth Rs. 86,002 from M/s. G. R. Co. Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The assessed paid for these purchases partly in cash and partly by issuing crossed cheques. The cash payments were as follows : 1. 15-4-1969 Rs. 4,500.00 2. 21-7-1969 Rs. 6,500.00 3. 11-3-1969 Rs. 4,500.00 4. 26-8-1969 Rs. 5,000.00 5. 18-11-1969 Rs. 4,000.00 Rs. 24,500.00 (2) Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act (to be referred to in short as 'the Act') was introduced in 1969. It provided for disallowance of any expenditure in respect of which payment was made of a sum exceeding Rs. 2,500.00 otherwise than by a crossed cheque or a crossed bank draft. It was made applicable from 1st April, 1969. However, certain exceptions were specified in rule 600 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. (3) Before the Income-tax Off...
Sushma Kumari Vs. Ramesh Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi729
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) Smt. Sushma Kumari the appellant herein, has challenged the decree of divorce passed on 21st July, 1980 under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein called 'the Act') by Shri R. L. Gupta, an Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby appellant has been found to have committed adultery with Krishan Lal co-respondent. She has also challenged the judgment rejecting her application under section 27 of the Act for return of goods. (2) The parties were married in accordance with Hindu rites on the night intervening 25,26th February, 1975, at Karol Bagh, Delhi. They firstly resided and co-habited in the family house of the husband's father but with effect from 8th January, 1976 shifted to a one-room tenement in Pahar Ganj, Delhi. The case of Ramesh Chand respondent herein, was that he had shifted from the joint family house to House No. 5511 Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, as his wife had been pressing him to live separately. His further case was that in the...
Skytone Electricals (India) Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi788
G.C. Jain, J.(1) Messrs Skytone Electricals (India) Faridabad, is a partnership firm carrying on business for the manufacture of electrical goods and other allied articles. They entered into a contrect No ES-3/BULK/33/III/Skytone/1026 Paod, dated January 18, 1973 with the Union of India, respondent No 1, for supply of the following sfores of the value of Rs. 14.75,6191- : - Item No-1: 12 core x 105 sq.m .. 100K.M. Item No. 2 : 9 cors x 1.5 sq.m. . . 13.5 K.M. Item No. .5: 2 core x. 1.5sq.m. .. 50K..M. (2) Delivery of items I and 5 was to commence after four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order at 50 K.Ms. per month to be completed by May 10. 1973. The stores under G item No. 1 were to be delivered, by June 10, 1973. In exercise of its-right under clause 19(e) of the contract the- respondent increased the quantity under items 2 and 5 from 13.5 and 50 K. Ms. to 13.65 and 62 K.Ms., respectively. The value of stores was, consequently, increase to Rs. 15,24,2911-. Thp petitioner,...
income-tax Officer Vs. Mahesh Trading Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: [1982]2ITD445(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri O. P. Garg, Judicial Member - The revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dated 23-10-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The assesseds Cross-objection filed in the said appeal was also heard simultaneously. The matters were heard ex parte, as none of the assessed appeared despite service.2. 1976-77 is the assessment year concerned. Financial year is the previous year. The assessed is a registered firm, consisting of four partners, namely, Usha Devi, Madhu Bala, Kanti Prasad and Raj Kishan. The assessment was completed by the ITO as per order dated 31-3-1979, determining total income at Rs. 1,30,320.3. In the assesseds cross-objection as many as three grounds, including the Ground No. 3, which is general in nature, have been raised. Learned departmental representative has pointed out, with reference to para 7 of the Appellate Commissioners order, that none of the grounds mentioned in the Ground No. 2 of the cross-objection was pressed before the Appellate Comm...
V.K. Madhok Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi332; 21(1982)DLT60a; 1982(3)DRJ285; 1982RLR337
(1) Award of interest Pendente lite is entirely discretionary with the Arbitrator. The court ought not interfere with the arbitrator's discretion....
P.N. Bhatt Vs. Kaushalya Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT295; 1982(3)DRJ200; 1982RLR294
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Learned counsel for the respondent next submits that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Controller was not sufficiently stamped under Article 7 in 'Schedule l.of the Court Fees Act, 1870. H6 submits that the impugned order is an order having the force of a decree and thereforee court fee of Rs. 2.65 ought to have been affixed on the copy. Article 6 in Schedule I requires the payment of court fees at Rs. 1.25 paisc on the copy of the judgment or ordr not having the force of a decree. The question for decision is whether the impugned order is an order having the force of a decree. Section 42 of the Act provides that an order made by the Controller shall be executable by the Controller as a decree of a civil court, and the Controller shall have the powers of the civil court, la other words, it is not an order having the force of a decree but it is executable as a decree of the civil...
Krishan Kumar Madhok Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi606
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. 1. This is an appeal from the order of a learned single judge of this court dated January 16, 1980.2. These are the facts. The appellant is a firm of contractors. They did work for the respondent Union of India. Disputes arose between the parties. There was an arbitration clause. The matter was referred to the sole arbitration of the Chief. Engineer, Pune Zone. He made an award dated July 16, 1977. The award wag filed in court. The Union of India filed objections to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act (the Act). The contractore, on the other hand, made an application under Section 15 of the Act for the modification of the award.3. The learned judge made the award a rule of the court with this modification that he reduced the rate of interest from 18 per cent awarded by the arbitrator to 6 per cent from April 14, 1977 till the date of the passing of the decree i.e. 16-1-1980. There was another dispute between the parties. The learned judge ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »