Court : Delhi
Reported in : 21(1982)DLT62; 1982RLR677
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) Since a common point of law arises in these revision petitions, I propose to dispose them of by this order. (2) Ashok Kumar Nayar petitioner in Cr.R 311/81 is one of the accused in case bearing No. Rc 2 of 1972 pending in the court of Shri A.K. Garg Addl Cmm, Delhi for offences u/s 120B/420, 420/466, 467, 468, 466, 471 and 468/471 of the IPC. Om Parkash Oberoi petitioner in Cr R No. 369/81, Rajinder Pal Bajaj alias Kaka petitioner in Cr.R. No. 371/81 and Rajinder Pal Oberoi petitioner in Cr.R. No. 371/81, are facing trial for similar offences in cases No. 3 and 4 of 1981 pending in the same Court. (3) A preliminary objection was taken by the accused against the cognizance of the offences on the ground that as the offences mainly relate to infringement of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ('the Act'), prior complaint was necessary as envisaged u/s 23 of the Act. In para 7 of the application moved by petitioner Ashok Kumar Nayar, challenge to the cognizance was as f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1488; 22(1982)DLT64; 1982RLR611
J.D. Jain, J.(1) J. G. Mehta was married to Major M. K. Singha, respondent No. 2, on 19th February, 1973 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife only up to 26th September, 1973, at the place of posting of respondent No 2 in Mizoram. However, they could not pull on together smoothly and the petitioner's daughter was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial house by respondent No. 2 during advance stage of pregnancy. Subsequently, a son was born out of the wedlock on 18th December, 1973. Respondent No. 2 thereafter moved a petition for judicial separation sometime in August, 1975. Civil litigation between the parties also commenced with regard to the custody of the child and at present the child is in the custody of respondent No. 2 as per orders of the Court although the mother of the child has been permitted to see him off and on. (2) In the meanwhile, father of respondent No. 2 died on 17th December) 1978. On coming to know of i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)2ITD396(Delhi)
1. Revenue's appeal against order dated 7-1-1981 of the A AC and the assessee's appeals against common order dated 19-1-1982 of the Commissioner (Appeals) were taken up together for hearing.2. 1978-79 to 1980-81 are the assessment years concerned. March 31 immediately preceding each assessment year is the corresponding valuation date. Assessee is an individual. Facts of the three assessment years under consideration are somewhat similar; We, therefore, proceed to detail the facts pertaining to the assessment year 1978-79. only. The dispute relates to includibility of sums of Rs. 11,840, Rs. 39,453 and Rs. 52,335 respectively, for the three years.3. Under the provisions of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974 ('the CDS Act'), the assessee had been from year to year depositing certain amounts by way of compulsory deposits.Accordingly, during the financial year 1977-78, the assessee freshly deposited sum totalling Rs. 11.840. Balance standing to assessee's credit i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(Del)234; ILR1982Delhi891
Mrs. Leila Seth, J. 1. The question posed for our consideration by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (to be referred to in short as 'the Act'), are as follow : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs debited by the assessed to 'Deferred Revenue Expenditure, Technical know-how Payment Account' was expenditure of a capital nature 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessed-company was not entitled to depreciation in respect of the said amount of Rs. 4 lakhs 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,09,191 paid by the assessed to Brotherhoods Ltd., represented expenditure of a capital nature 4. If answer to question No. 3 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed-company was entitled to depreciation i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 21(1982)DLT477
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a second appeal on behalf of the tenant Gurcharan Singh, against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 3.5.1979 against him on the grounds covered by clause (e) of the provis to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act''). (2) The point involved in the appeal is whether the respondent-landlord bona fide requires premises in occupation of the tenant and whether he has no other suitable accommodation available with him. (3) Two of the requirements which the landlord has to satisfy before he is entitled to an order for eviction on grounds covered under the aforesaid proviso are : (i) that the landlord bona fide requires the premises let out to the tenant for residential purposes and (ii) that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. (4) The finding of fact recorded by both, the learned Addl. Rent Controller and Tribunal, is that re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1982]136ITR340(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) The questions posed for our consideration by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (to be referred to in short as 'the Act'.), are as follows : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs debited by the assessed to 'Deferred Revenue Expenditure. Technical know-how payment Account' was expenditure of a capital nature '2.If answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessed company was not entitled to depreciation in respect of the said amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,09,191 paid by the assessed to Brotherhood Limited represented expenditure of a capital nature 4. If answer to question No. 3 is in the affirmative. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company was entitled to depreciation in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1982)2ITD592(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the assessees, Shri R.D. Chadha [IT Appeal No. 340 of 1979], Shri Y.D. Sehgal [IT Appeal No. 341 of 1979], Shri S.N. Sikka [IT Appeal No. 342 of 1979] and Shri P.C. Sachdev [IT Appeal No. 343 of 1979], directed against different orders of the Commissioner, Delhi-I, and Commissioner, Agra, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), respectively, dated 28-11-1978, 29-11-1978, 2-12-1978 and 25-11-1978, have been consolidated, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. The years of assessments involved in these appeals are 1972-73 in the case of the assessee, Shri R.D. Chadha, 1975-76 in the case of the assessee, Shri Y.D. Sehgal, 1976-77 in the case of the assessee, Shri S.N. Sikka, and 1975-76 in the case of the assessee, Shri P.C. Sachdev for which the respective previous years ended 31-3-1972, 31-3-1975, 31-3-1976 and 31-3-1975.2. The assessees are the employees of the Food Corporation of India, a public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 23(1983)DLT509
D.K. Das, J.(1) This is a petition for revision under Section 72 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the order dated 28-1-1982 of the Revenue Assistant whereby he ordered correction of entries in pursuance of the order of the civil court dated 17-3-1981 regarding certain pieces of land situated within the revenue estate of village Ladpur, Delhi as incorporated in the first paragraph of the petition. (2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at admission stage and gone through the papers annexed with the petition for revision. (3) After hearing arguments the main point for consideration is whether the learned Revenue Assistant is justified not to go behind the decision of the Civil Court and in his attempt proceeded to implement the order of the civil court in conformity with the observations contained therein. (4) It appears that the land detailed in paragraph I of the petition for revision was purchased by the respondents. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 22(1982)DLT208; ILR1982Delhi914; 1982LabIC1599; 1982(2)SLJ575(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These are two appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the order of a learned single judge dated 11th February. 1981. At the conclusion of the hearing on March 23, 1982 we announced our orders. We allowed the appeals. We dismissed the writ petition. We left the parties to bear their own costs Now we give our reasons. (2) These are the facts. On May 22, 1979 two assistant engineers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the Corporation), Ram Lal Malik and 1. C. Gupta, brought a writ oetition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Corporation and its Commissioner. These two petitioners challenged the final seniority list notified on January 30, 1975 and asked that the said seniority list be quashed by a writ of certiorari. (3) This writ petition was contested by the Corporation. Among other pleas the Corporation raised the objection that the writ petition was not competent in the absence of all those who were likely to be affected by the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(3)DRJ240
J.D. Jain, J.(1) On 10th May, 1979, the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi issued an order stayed 'Delhi (Milk and Milk Products Control order, 1979' (for short the order) under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order was promulgated for the purpose of maintaining and increasing the supplies of milk and for securing its equitable distribution in the Union Territory of Delhi. It prohibited manufacture, sale, service, supply or export of milk products and banned the use of milk for the manufacture of case - in, khoa, rubree, paneer or any kind of sweets in the preparation of which milk or any of its products, except ghee was an ingredient. The Order came into force on 15th May, 1979 and ceased to operate on 14th July, 1979. However, while the Order was still in force officials of the Food & Supplies Department, Delhi Administration, conducted a raid on the shop of the petitioner, who runs halwai shop in the name name style of ...
Tag this Judgment!