Delhi Court August 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.
Tobu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joginder Metal Works and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi451
H.L. Anand, J. (1) The quesction that thispplication raises is as to entitlements of the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale tricycles, said to bear the design claimed to be an infringement of the registered designs of the pla.intiff, during the pendency of the plaintiff's suit for .permanent injunction to restrain infringement of the designs and for passing off, rendition of accounts and certain other reliefs. (2) Tobu Enterprises Private Ltd, plaintiff, is the manufacturer and seller of children bicycles, tricycles, cars and strollers and claims that its goods have distinctive shape and configuration and are in great demand. It is claimed that amongst the famous product of the plaintiff is 'mini bike tricycle' having a unique, novel and distinctive shape and configuration and the plaintiff is the proprietor of the new and original design in respect of the tricycle which is registered under the Designs Act by virtue of which the plaint...
Vinod Kumar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD606(Delhi)
1. These three appeals have been filed by the assessee against the common order of the AAC relating to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 wherein it was held that the three appeals filed by the assessee were barred by limitation and hence were dismissed in limine.2. The relevant facts are that the ITO completed the assessments for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 on 22-2-1973 under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), and the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70 was completed on 30-12-1972 also under Section 144. The notices of demand and challan, etc., for each of the assessment years mentioned above were sent by the ITO by means of registered post AD. All the letters were received back with the remarks of the postal authorities as 'refused to accept'. It appears that later on, the ITO sent these notices through his Inspector and the said notices of demand, challans and copies of the assessment orders were served on the assessee through the Inspecto...
Gwbux Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1982
Reported in: 1983RLR222
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) The petitioner has come to this court with the allegation that in June 1981 an order was passed by the Government to give him out of turn priority for shifting his phone No. 267926 to 31, defense Enclave, Delhi, and which was repeated by the respondent as per their letter dt. 24.7.1981 and which order was in pursuance of order passed by the Minister of State for Communication yet respondents were deliberately and mala fide not shifting the phone. Allegation of discrimination was also made by pointing out that some other persons have had their phones shifted in respect of whom orders had been passed subsequently to that of the petitioner. (2) In the counter-affidavit it is admitted that the orders for shifting the phone on priority basis were passed by the Minister of State in June, 1981. But the stand taken is that this order was rescinded by the General Manager on 30.7.1981. The further Justification sought to be given was that 650 applications are waiting for ...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Dropadi Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi346; 1983(4)DRJ79; 1983RLR4
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The appellant-husband filed a petitioner under Section 13(l)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') on the ground that his wife-respondent No. 1 had been living in adultery with respondent No. 2. His petition was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 31st January, 1981. Hence he filed this first appeal under Section 28 of the Act The wife filed an application (C.M. No. 3304 of 1981) for maintenance and litigation expenses for this appeal. By order dated 1st February, 1982 the appellant was directed to pay Rs 500.00 as litigation expenses besides maintenance for the respondent and their five children at Rs.. 450.00 per month. Various opportunities were granted to the appellant to pay the litigation expenses and maintenance but he failed. The appellant is represented by a counsel. The respondent wife is not in a position to engage a counsel unless litigation expenses are paid. Failure to cornply with order under Section 24 of...
Nirmal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ49
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The petitioner-tenant in this revision under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order dated 21st May, 1980 of the Additional Controller directing his eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the eviction petition was barred under Order 9 rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').(2) Briefly the facts are that the respondent on 2nd February, 1977 had filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under Seccion 14(1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Act. Leave to defend was granted. On 21st September, 1977 the Rent Controller dismissed the same.(3) The respondent on 2nd January, 1978 filed a fresh petition against the petitioner under Section 11(l)(c) read with Section 25B of the Act alleg ing that he was the owner of the premises, which were let to the petitioner for res...
Banwari Lal Radhe Mohan Vs. Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marke ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi86
Luthra, J. 1. This judgment disposes of O.M.P. No. 62 of 1982 and I.A. No. 1719 of 1982. The application (I.A. No. 1719 of 1982) is for issue of a temporary injunction restraining the State Bank of Patiala, Shardhanand Marg, Delhi, from encashment of the bank guarantee given at the instance of M/S. Banwari Lal Radhe Mohan (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') in favor of the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to and commercially known as 'the MARKFED'). O.M.P. No. 62 of 1982 is for issue of a direction to the MARKFED that the latter should not withhold payment of Rs. 24,39,431.96 during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings between the parties. 2. There is no dispute of some of the facts. On May 14, 1981, a contract was entered into between the State Trading Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the STC') and M/s. Sulaiman Al-Mohammad Al-Rashid of Saudi Arabia (hereinafter referred to as 'the foreign buyer') for s...
Subhash Chander Vs. Arjan Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT48; 1983(4)DRJ33; 1982RLR721
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The question for decision in this second appeal is : What is the effect of an order passed under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in an eviction petition if the tenant had already enjoyed the benefit under section 14(2) of the Act in the previous eviction petition (2) Briefly the facts are that the respondent-landlady filed a petition on 12th August, 1976 under section 14(l)(a) of the Act claiming eviction of the appellant on the ground that he had failed to pay arrears of rent due from him for the period from 1st April, 1975 at Rs. 43.00 per month inspire of notice of demand. After trial Shri M.A. Khan, Additional Rent Controller passed a conditional order of eviction dated 29th October, 1976 in case No. E-445 on 1976 against the appellant directing him to deposit all arrears of rent for the period from 1st April, 1975 at Rs. 43.00 per month within one month from the date of the order and in case of such depos...
Hindustan General Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD343(Delhi)
1. Since the above appeals relate to the same assessee, they are taken up together for disposal by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. We will first take the assessee's appeal. The main contention in this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the ITO for passing the assessment order on 15-3-1976. The assessee which is a limited company is engaged in the business of manufacturing railway wagons, aircraft refuelers and LPG cylinders. It filed its return of income on 31-7-1972, declaring an income of Rs. 4,76,654. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 17-2-1975 declaring an income of Rs. 4,73,125 (somewhere mentioned as Rs. 4,77,125). On 23-1-1976, the ITO wrote a letter to the assessee requiring it to furnish among others, details of unsecured loans with a separate list of fresh loans (including squared up loans) and confirmations of the parties with their permanent account numbers. This was replied by the assessee on 30-1-1976 when required details were furnis...
A. Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi1008
1. The petitioner, the sole proprietor A. Kumar of the Indian Steel Corporation, 19 Sombhudass Street, Madras, purchased 17 licenses issued to various parties for the import of 'All seconds/second grade/defective/cuttings/circles of all grade of alloy/steel (including stainless/heat resisting steels/high speed steels) to any specification/analysis in coated/uncoated condition in any form/section/size/category.' He negotiated the supply with Sammisa & Co., of Korea. The sale contract was confirmed on 21-1-1982. He opened letters of credit in favor of the supplier for the total value of US $ 200100, on 5-2-1982 with the Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Madras. The supplier prepared invoices on 15-2-1982. The Bill of Lading was prepared and 249.400 M.T. of stainless steel circles defective were shipped on 26-2-1982. The goods arrived at the Madras port on 27-4-1982. The Bill of Entry was given on 11-5-1982 to the Collector of Customs for assessment of duty. It is alleged that at the time the order ...
Indian Steel Corporation, Madras Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1982
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT877(Del)
1. The petitioner, the sole proprietor A. Kumar of the Indian Steel Corporation, 19 Sambhudas Street, Madras, purchased 17 licenses issued to various parties for the import of 'All seconds/second grade/defective/cuttings/circles of all grade of alloy/steel (including stainless/heat resisting steels/high speed steels) to any specification/analysis in coated/uncoated condition in any form/section/size/category.' He negotiated the supply with Sammisa & Co., of Korea. The sale contract was confirmed on 22-1-1982. He opened letters of credit in favor of the supplier for the total value of US $ 200100, on 5-2-1982 with the Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Madras. The supplier prepared invoices on 15-2-1982. The Bill of Lading was prepared and 249.400 M.T. of stainless steel circles defective were shipped on 26-2-1982. The goods arrived at the Madras Port on 27-4-1982. The Bill of Entry was given on 11-5-1982 to the Collector of Customs for assessment of duty. It is alleged that at the time the order w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »