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.
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Alkaram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi365; 21(1982)DLT44; 1982(3)DRJ286; 1982RLR363
(1) Where an arbitrator makes a mistake either In law or in fact but such mistake does not appear on the face of the award, the award is good notwithstanding the mistake and will not be remitted or set aside.(2) To make a mistake of fact is not 'misconduct' so long the mistake of law does not appear on the face of the award. The term 'misconduct' properly applies to the 'procedural mishaps' which result in injustice. The arbitrator is not bound by the technical rule & evidence. The arbitrator does not give judicial justice but rough justice of the world....
Jyoti Malhotra Vs. Kewal Kishore Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi148; 1982(3)DRJ201; ILR1982Delhi390; 1982RLR278
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) At the conclusion of the hearing we announced the order We allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single judge Now we give our reasons.(2) This is a wife's appeal from the order of the learned single judge dated November 19, 1981. The husband sued for divorce in the court of the Additional District Judge. He granted a decree of divorce under the Special Marriage Act on 24.3.1981 to the husband against the wife. The wife brought an appeal in the High Court. Before the learned single judge the husband raised the question of limitation. The wife made an application for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned judge held that the appeal was barred by time and that no ground had been shown to him for condensation of delay. He rejected the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal as time barred.(3) The dates are important in this case. The Additional District Judge granted the decree of divorce...
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-iv Vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR493(Delhi)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. Under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred to us the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts received by the assessed (English company) from M/s Dunlop Rubber Co (India) Ltd (Indian company) as per agreement dated 29th January, 1957, constituted income assessable to tax ?' 2. We may incidentally mention that four different questions were prayed for by the Revenue for reference in its application. The Tribunal thought that the question which has been referred to us would cover all the material aspects and, accordingly, referred the question to this court, as indicated hereinbefore. It was suggested that the Tribunal had no power to do so. We are not inclined to consider this aspect and we do not find any lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal in referring the question to this court as if has done. 3. This reference relates to four different assessment years, viz, the assessment ye...
H.L. Vijh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1982
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ108
Sachar, J.(1) The staff working in Courts including that in High Court is normally a proverbial poor relation in comparison to the Secretariat staff. That possibly may be the reason why inspire of years spent in praying to get justice, nothing has been done necessitating the staff to resort, however, reluctantly to move this Court to get their legitimate dues which should have been given long back.(2) The petitioners before us are the Deputy Registrars of this Court. Their claim in the petition is for payment of special pay. The posts of the Deputy Registrars are filled up either from amongst the members of Delhi Judicial Service or from amongst the Assistant Registrars of this Court by promotion. It is common case that a Deputy Registrar if he is a member of Delhi Judicial Service now gets Rs. 150.00 per mensern as special pay (it was Rs. 100.00 per mensem prior to 1-1-1978). However, no special pay is paid to a Deputy Registrar who is not a member of Delhi Judicial Service. At presen...
Vishnu Bhagwan Vs. Nawal Kishore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT381; 1982(3)DRJ231; 1982RLR291
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) A complaint alleging that Padmawati was burnt to death on 24th July, 1979 by her husband Vishnu Bhagwan petitioner, herein was filed by Nawal Kishore father of the deceased, on November 5, 1979. In all, 10 witnesses have been named by the complainant in in the list of witnesses; one of them is a medical officer of the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where Padmawati had been admitted. After the complainant and five of the witnesses had been examined by the learned Magistrate, he (complainant) made the following statement : 'I close the preliminary evidence.'(2) I may note here that excepting for postmortem report of the deceased, the other medical evidence pertaining to her has not been produced by the complainant. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 26th November, 1981 has parima facie found that an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioner herein. Hence, he has issued summons for his appearance. The said order is be...
R.C. Malik Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT61; 1982(3)DRJ176; 1982LabIC1604; 1982RLR305; 1982(2)SLJ545(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) The appellant, R.C. Malik, appeared in the Combined Engineering Service Examination held by the Union Public Service Commission in September 1964. On February 19, 1966, he joined the service as an Assistant Director. According to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution by the President of India, there were three grades in the service, namely. Grades I, Ii and III.(2) The posts of Assistant Directors are in Grade Iii, The candidates appoiated to this service were, according to Rule 13 of the Indian Supply Service (Class 1) Rules 1961, to be on probation for a period of two years. (3) On completion of the period of probation the officers of Grade Ii I were, if considered fit for a permanent appointment, to be confirmed in their appointment subject to the availability of posts. The Government could extend the period of probation for two years. If on the expiry of the period of probation or of the extended period, if any, in the opinion of the Gov...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Delhi Central) Vs. Bharat Insurance Co. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Del)371; [1983]142ITR342(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. 1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by which the following question has been referred to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed-company was carrying on any business during any or all the accounting periods relevant to any or all the assessment years 1962-63, 1964-65 to 1968-70 ?' 2. M/s. Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd., the assessed, is a limited company. The assessment years in dispute are the years 1962-63, 1964-65 to 1969-70, while the previous years were the years ended December 31, 1961, December 31, 1963, to December 31, 1968. At the relevant time, the assessed derived income under the head 'Interest on securities' and there is no dispute to this head of income. The dispute is as to the claim of the assessed that it carried on business in the relevant years of account. 3. When the Insurance Act, 1938, came into force, the assessed was carrying on the business of life insurance, fidelit...
Nand Gopal Bacchas and ors. Vs. Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi280; 21(1982)DLT323; 1982(3)DRJ228; 1982RLR287
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The respondent had filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 96,869-09 against the petitioner herein. Time was granted to the present petitioners to file their written statement.(2) The petitioners herein did not file the written statement but moved two applications, one under Order 7 Rules 9 and 14 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . and another under Sections 6, 17 and 23 of the Court Fees Act. The Additional District judge in his judgment dated 2nd September, 1981 observed that despite time having been granted the defendants-petitioners-herein, had not filed their written statement. The Additional District judge proceeded under Order 8 Rule 10 and, taking the allegations in the plaint to be correct, he pronounced the judgment against the defendants. The Additional District Judge observed ' I grant to the plaintiffs a decree for the recovery ofRs. 869-09 ps. with costs of the suit.'(3) The aforesaid order is new sought to be challenged in the present Petition un...
Vinod Arora Vs. Manju Arora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: 1982RLR532
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order passed on 30.7.81 by Shri M.A. Khan, ADJ. declining the application of the husband appellant herein, u/s 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the 'Act'). It was held that the husband has not been able to make out any ground of exceptional hardship so as to entitle him to move the petition for dissolubefore the expiry of one year from the date of marriage. (2) inspire of service of 'actual date notice' of this appeal, respondent-wife has not appeared. I have heard Mr, Chug, counsel for the appellant, and with his assistance, gone through the record. (3) The parties were married in accordance with the Hindu rites on 14.3.81. The husband's case is that after 3 days of the marriage, the wife refused to have any sexual intercource with him. His further grievance is that she remained absent from the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause or excuse. The working hours, of the wife, who is a teacher, are 8.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. bu...
Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Del)414; [1983]142ITR487(Delhi)
Narain, C.J.1. The common question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' to this court in these two references reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessments in question under the provisions of section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The assessment years involved in these two references are 1949-50 and 1950-51, the relevant accounting year of the assessed being the years ending on April 30, 1949, and April 30, 1950. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are these : For the relevant two years the assessed in its returns claimed to have paid to the two companies known as M/s Gokulnagar Sugar Mills Co Ltd. and Great Sugar Combine Ltd. Selling agency commission with reference to certain territories at the rate of 0-12-0 (75 paise) per cent. on the sales. It is common ground that the assessed is one of the companies belonging to one group of companies car...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »