Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1474; 22(1982)DLT29; 1982RLR439
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) Jagmohan @ Jaggu has challenged his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (herein called 'the Act'). The order of detention bearing (No. F. 91/D/LA/Judl.) 81/1161-63 was pas. sed by the then Commissioner of Police on 17th September, 1981, and was confirmed by the Administrator on 31st October, 1981, whereby under Section 13 of the Act it was directed that the petitioner be detained for 12 months from the date of his detention, namely 21st September, 1981. (2) At the outset it may be noticed that the petitioner's allegations are that he was arrested from his residence at Modinagar where he had been living for the last over three years. Accroding to him he has not been involved in any criminal case in Delhi after 9th July, 1980. The respondents admit that the petitioner was arrested from Modinagar and that no case after 9th July, 1980, was registered against him at Delhi. (3) It is the admitted case of the parties that the last two cases mentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)8ITD67(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals, the assessment year involved is 1968-69 and the valuation date is shown as 31-3-1968. WT Appeal No. 1606 (Delhi) of 1980 is by the assessee, an individual/resident while WT Appeal No.1590 (Delhi) of 1980 is by the revenue.2. The assessee is aggrieved on the score that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 4,12,793 being the compensation received in the later years, since the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the compensation accrued to the assessee during the assessment year under appeal. The revenue is aggrieved on the score that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,46,550 made by the WTO on account of the intended compensation to be received by the assessee from the Government for his land at Patparganj which has been acquired by the Government.3. The facts briefly stated and as found out from the assessment order dated 26-3-1979 are as under: The assessee has claimed in part 4 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi91; 22(1982)DLT184; 1982(3)DRJ324
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal by the defendants challenges the judgment and order dated 30-1 -1978 of the Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi allowing the application of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order I Rule , of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). (2) Briefly the facts arc L.Dewen Chand; Trust plaintiff-respondent No.1 and its trustees respondents No. 2 to 6 filed a suit in 1967 for possession against Pishori Lal, predecessor of the appellants with respect to Quarter Nos.3 and 4 of 30, Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi. On 31-12-1977 an application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code was filed by the plaintiffs and. the newly appointed trustees of L.Dewan Chand Trust alleging that out of five trustees, Mr Ram Lubhaya and Smt. Prakash Wati, respondents No. 4 and 5 have died, that the remaining trustees i.e. respondents No. 2,3 and 6 appointed Mr. K..C. Khanna, Prof Veda Vyas,Dr. G.L. Datta. Mr. Naunit Lal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 22(1982)DLT356
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal by the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th October, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 11th March, 1980 of the Rent Controller passing an order of eviction against the appellant under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act and holding further that if he deposits all arrea's of rent at Rs. 100 per month with effect from 1st January, 1976 within one month from the date of the order the appellant wotild be deemed to have availed the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act.(2) Briefly the facts are R. S. Aggarwal, respondent on 19th January, 1979 filed an application for eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 1st June, 1970 at Rs. 100 per month in spite of notice of demand. The other ground of eviction was that the premises were let for residential purposes, the same were require...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1981Delhi558; [1986]59CompCas162(Delhi); 22(1982)DLT170; 1982RLR570
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The Facts. On 5-12-1961 at about 9.30 a.m. the respondent Kumari Lalita a girl of eight, was standing at the bus stand of Vinay Nagai Colony at Ring Road, New Delhi. She was waiting for the arrival of the bus to go to her school. All of a sudden a bus of appellant No. I, Delhi Transport Corporation (the Corporation), No. Dlp 705 driven by Suresh Chander, appellant No. 2 came and crushed her. Lalita received severe and lasting injuries. The accident was a disaster. She. was permanently disabled. She was crippled for life. The doctors gave evidence before the Motor Accidents Clamis Tribunal where she brought her claim for damages. They paid that she would never be a normal child again. She will never be able to walk. She will limp. She will not be able to bear children. She will have no control ever her bowel action. Her natural development has been retarded.(2) On the question of negligence the tribunal was of the opinion that the driver was guilty of rash an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982RLR650
Yogesnwar Dayal, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against order of the learned Additional Rent Controller, dt. 6.1.82 whereby after permitting the tenant leave to appear and contest the eviction petition and after going through the trial thereof has accepted the ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground of bona fide personal requirement against the petitioner. (2) The respondent filed an application for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on or about 30-1-1976 under Sub section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) on the following averments : 18 (a) (i) That the premises were let out to the respondent for use as residence and the same is now required bonafide by the petitioner who is the owner thereof for use as residence for self and other members of his family dependent upon him. (ii) The petitioner was residing Along with his son Shri S.L. Mohindroo in premises No. 10. Under Hill Road, a requisitioned property by the Delhi Administ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982(3)DRJ276
1. This judgment will also dispose of C.W. No. 401 of 1982, as the questions involved in the two petitions are identical. The only additional relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 401 of 1982 is prayer (f) with which I shall deal separately. 2. These petitions have to fail on the short ground that the relief claimed against respondents No. 1 and 2 stands already satisfied and the respondents 3 and 4 are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The allegations against respondents 1 and 2 are contained in paragraph 21 of the petition. The said paragraph is as follows : '21. That as the management has been deliberately violating its Standing Orders in a hasty manner with a clear view to victimise the poor workers for their only crime of forming the Union against the wishes of the management hence the petitioners had no other alternative but to approach the Government machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1983)ILLJ306Del
Goswamy, J.(1) This judgment will also dispose of G.W. 401 of 1982 as the questions involved in I he two petitions are identical. The only additional relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 401 of 1982 is prayer (f) with which I shall deal separately.(2) These petitions have to fail on the short ground that the relief claimed against respondents I and 2 stands already satisfied and the respondents 3 and 4 are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. The allegations against respondents I and 2 are contained in paragraph 21 of the petition. The said paragraph is as follows :(3) '21 That as the management has been deliberately violating its standing orders in a hasly manner with a clear view to victimise the poor workers for their only crime of forming the Union against the wishes of the management hence the petitioners had no other alternative but to approach the the government machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Industrial Establisliment Standing Carde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)2ITD278(Delhi)
1. The assessee in appeal is Bharat Carpets Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The year of assessment involved is 1978-79 for which the previous year ended on 31-1-1978. As in the past, during the year under consideration the assessee carried on the business of manufacture of tufted woollen carpets and cotton tufted bed covers, etc., and also their sales in India and abroad.2. The I AC on going through the profit and loss account of the assessee found that a sum of Rs. 1,56,632 was credited by the assessee in that account under the head 'Sales of import entitlements' and that the assessee had returned the same as part of its total income in the original return filed by it. In the revised return, the assessee, however, claimed that the income from sale of import entitlements was of the nature of capital receipt and the same was not taxable. This plea of the assessee was not acceptable to the IAC who has observed that 'the import entitlement arises directly by carryin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1983)3ITD56(Delhi)
1. In IT Reference No. 948 of 1975, the following question of law was referred to the Allahabad High Court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the income derived by the Radha Swami Satsang, a religious institution, is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 By their Judgment dated 7-7-1980, their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court have answered the question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Now the matter comes up for passing an order under Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), conformably to the Judgment of their Lordships referred to above.2. When the matter came up for hearing, Shri G.C. Sharma, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that though the decision of the High Court on the question referred to them, has gone against the assessee, still the alternative submission made by the assessee to the Tribunal at the ...
Tag this Judgment!