Delhi Court May 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.
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Motors and General Finan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Del)412; [1983]142ITR424(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. By these references under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in rectifying the mistake by describing the assessed as a public limited company in which public was not substantially interested ?' 2. M/s Motor & General Finance Ltd., New Delhi, the assessed, is a company doing the business of financing. The assessment year in question is the year 1964-65 and the corresponding precious year is the year ended June 30, 1963. The assessed filed the return of income for the easement year 1964-65. The assessment was completed and made under s. 143(3) of the Act by the ITO on August 21, 1968. The status of the assessed was described as 'public limited company'. The ITO had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax ha...
Jugal Kishore Vs. Rai Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1982
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas340(Delhi); 22(1982)DLT294
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 29th July, 1974 by which the appellant was awarded only a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation against respondents 2 and 3 i.e. the owner and the insurer who were granted two months time to deposit the amount otherwise the appellant was held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award till realisation. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Briefly the facts are that Jugal Kishore, the appellant on 15th June, 1969 at about 8 A.M. with two passengers was driving scooter No. Dir 9322 and going towards defense Colony via Pachkuian Road Connaught Circus, New Delhi and while crossing Connaught Circus, New Delhi bus No. DLP-3699 driven by Rai Singh, respondent No. 1 coming from Plaza side at a rash and reckless speed and without caring...
Salwan Public School Vs. D.K. Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1982
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ397; 1983LabIC539; 1982RLR638; 1982(2)SLJ278(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The question raised in this petition has never yet, we believe, been decided and as it is of considerable importance, and has been fully argued before us, we think we sought not to delay giving our decision.(2) The question is this. By Section 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (Act No. 18 of 1973) the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi is impowered to constitute a School Tribunal to hear appeals. It is one man tribunal. Section 11, in so far as it is material, is in these terms. ' 11 (1) The Administrator shall, be notification, constitute a Tribunal, to be known as the 'Delhi School Tribunal' consisting of one person; Provided that no person shall be so appointed unless he has held office as a District Judge or any equivalent judicial office.(3) The respondent Mr. D.K. Dags, I.A.S., has been appointed as 'Delhi School Tribunal' under section 11. The petitioner, Salwan Public School, challenges his appointment and says that an order be ma...
Yog Raj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT9
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant Yog Raj under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and further under Section 27 of the Arms Act to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.(2) The deceased Chander Kanta was the daughter of Phool Singh (Public Witness 1), a constable of the P.S. Original Road, Delhi and married to the accused on 8-3-1976. She had a baby of three months old at the time of her murder. The accused and his mother bad strained relations with the deceased because she did not bring dowry in her marriage. On 11-10-1977 Chander Kanta lodged a report (Ex. Public Witness IO.I) at the police station Karol Bagh that she was beaten and turned out of the house on 24-9-1977. She went to her father's house but he brought her back and left her at her matrimonial home five/six days thereafter. She was again turned ...
Mohan Lal Vs. Tirath Ram Chopra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi405; 22(1982)DLT1b; 1982(3)DRJ298; ILR1982Delhi345; 1982RLR468
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The main question which arises for consideration before this Bench is as to under what circumstances should leave to contest be granted to the tenant under section 25B(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') when an application for eviction under proviso (a) to sub-sec, (1) of Section 14 read with section 25B of the Act Act is filed against him by the landlord. This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1012 and Civil Revision No. 1013 of 1980 as the facts are identical and they, in fact, arise from the same order. (2) The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the landlords) are the owners of House No. 518, Gali Ram Nath, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The two respondents are brothers. Anapplication for eviction was filed by them on 7.480 under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Act. It-was contended in the application that respondent No 1 was aged about 68 years and was residing in a rented premises at Tag...
S.C. Taneja Vs. P.N. Atreshi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT307
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This petition under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 31st October, 1981 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, for leave to appear and contest the eviction application filed against her by the respondent. (2) Shri P. N. Atreshi, respondent herein, filed an eviction petition on or about 13th October 1980 for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act read with the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act. (3) The case of the landlord-respondent in the eviction petition was that the premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purposes, of which the respondent is the owner and the premises are now required bona fide by the respondent-landlord for himself and for members of his family dependent upon h...
Siri Pal JaIn Vs. Brij Ksihore and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT137; 1982(3)DRJ327
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal by the tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 26-11-1981 holding that the respondents-landlords have filed the eviction application under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that it should be tried under section 25-B of the Act.(2) Briefly the facts are that respondents I to 3 filed an application for eviction of the appellent and respondent No 4 under sections 14(l)(e) of the Act. In. the application the landlords also pleaded that respondent No. 4 (in this appeal) was made a party to avoid any objection at a later stage and to get the matter finally decided as she was in occupation of a portion of the suit premises which was lying locked, and that there was parting with possession by that tenant-appellant in her favor. The Controller by order dated 3-10-1981 held that the landlord had taken the ground of sub-letting within the meaning of section It (1) (b) ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-i Vs. Delhi Cloth and General M ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR275(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion. ' (i) Whether, the expenses of Rs. 45,824 incurred on the foreign tours of Shri Chart Ram and some of the officers of the assessed-company represent an element of actual cost of machinery and plant, etc., to the assessed and as such depreciation and development rebate are admissible with reference to this amount also? (ii) Whether the expenses of Rs. 23,399 and Rs. 29,772 incurred on foreign tours to technical officer, directors of the company in the assessment year 1962-63 and 1963-64 respectively represent an element of actual cost of machinery and plant, etc., to the assessed and as such depreciation and development rebate are admissible with reference to these amounts also? (iii) Whether the expenses of Rs. 8,072 incurred on the foreign tours of Lala Chart Ram in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63 repre...
Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT80
J.D. Jain, J. (1) A plot of land measuring about 6000 sq. yards situateat G Block opposite Satya Service Station, Hari Nagar, Delhi, belonged toShri Bans Gopal deceased father of the Rajesh Gopal etc., respondent No. 3.On the morning of 9/04/1982, a serious dispute took place between the petitioner, Shri Guru Singh Sabha, which is a registered body, with S. S.Mann as its President, and respondent No. 3 with regard to possession of theland. The Station House Officer, Police Station Janak Puri, on receipt of awireless message about the dispute reached the spot along with some membersof the staff. He found that about 150 persons including ladies and childrenbelonging to Sikh Community were raising a wall on the plot in dispute.Some 'Qanats' had been filtted along the plot and an improvised small roomhad also been built. One 'Nishan Sahib' i.e. a flag used as a holy symbolindicating the existence of a Sikh Gurudwara was also found at the spot.Rajesh Gopal, respondent No. 3, too was there.(...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas409(Delhi); (1983)36CTR(Del)153; ILR1983Delhi856; [1983]141ITR174(Delhi)
Chadha, J. 1. Section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, with effect from April 1, 1978. By this section, a provision is made to enable an amalgamated company to carry forward and set off the accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in certain cases of amalgamation of companies on a fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in sub-s. (1) of s. 72A and the Central Govt.'s satisfaction in respect thereof, namely, that the amalgamating company was not, immediately before such amalgamation, financially viable by reason of its liabilities, losses and other relevant factors and that the amalgamation was in the public interest. The satisfaction of the Central Govt. is to be arrived at after considering the recommendations of the specified authority being such authority that the Central Govt. may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify for the purposes of s. 72A. The effect of such declaration is,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »