Delhi Court May 1983 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.
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Bawa Singh Chawhan, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1983
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)738; [1985]151ITR757(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. These two income-tax reference relate to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 and involve a common question which can be disposed of by a common order though the principal question involved in this reference has already been decided by a Bench of this court to which one of us was a party in Addl. CIT v. Joginder Singh : [1985]151ITR93(Delhi) . It is necessary to state a few facts in order to appreciate the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The facts are as follows : For the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, the assessed, Bawa Singh Chawhan (who is now no more and is represented by his legal representatives), filed his returns of income long prior to March 31, 1968. His assessments were completed for the assessment year 1957-58 on December 22, 1961, on an income of Rs. 21,600 and for the assessment year 1958-59 on December 22, 1962, on a total income of Rs. 11,600. Subsequently, the ITO started proceedings under s. 147(a) of the ...
Smt. Ram Wati Vs. the State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT52
ORDER1. This petition under S. 482 of the Crl.P.C. is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, made on April 22, 1983 attaching the property in dispute under S. 146(1) of the Crl.P.C. and for the temporary restoration of possession of the property of the petitioner until the decision of the Court with regard to the actual possession of the property at the material time.2. Premises bearing No. 1140/47, D.D.A. Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi was allotted to Smt. Sharad, respondent No. 2. She has been staying in Karachi along with her husband, who works in the Indian Embassy there. Smt. Sharda had apparently left the premises in the care of one Jagbir, who resides in another premises in the vicinity. It is a common case that Jabir let it out to Smt. Ramwati, the petitioner and Ramwati and the other members of the family, including her husband, had been in peaceful possession on the premises for the last 3 years and continued to be in such possession until March 27...
Raj International Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)Crimes254; 24(1983)DLT47
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, sealing the door of the mezzanine floor of the property in dispute opening towards the staircase which prevents the petitioners from using the staircase. (2) Premises No. 4946-48, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, was purchased in June, 1979 by Satinder Singh and Shri Pal Singh, respondents 3 and 4, M/s K.G. Raj & Company, watch merchants, respondent No. 2, and M/s Castophene Manufacturing Company, had been in occupation of the first and second floor of the premises as tenants for the last many years before the purchase of the property by the said respondents According to respondent No. 2, the said respondent and the other tenant had been entitled to the exclusive use of the staircase and respondent No. 2 used to put its lock on the door. outside the staircase, apparently with an arrangement with th...
Fraveen Kumari Vs. Man Mohan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi139; 1983(5)DRJ297; 1983RLR704
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The parties were married on 18-1-1979. A petition was filed by the husband on 15-91980 against the wife for annulment of marriage under Section 5(1)(c); and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground that the wife suffered recurrent attacks of epilepsy and this fact was concealed from the husband and his consent was obtained by fraud. The learned AddI. District Judge found that the allegation of the husband was correct and annulled the marriage by his order dated 4-12-1982. Hence, this appeal.(2) Barely nine/ten days after the marriage Dr. M.L. Arora had referred here by his letter dated 27-2-1979 for treatment to G.B. Pant Hospital. From the record brought by Dr. S.R. Jairam of the said Hospital, it was disclosed that Dr. Barua had examined her on 1-3-1979 and found that she was suffering from epilepsy. She also produced one witness Dr. M.N. Passy of the Hindu Rao Hospital, who was a Senior Physician. He examined her on 20-9-1982. He found her to be suf...
Lakshmi NaraIn Mehta Vs. Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT246
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) The prayer in this petition is for quashing of the proceedings in two criminal cases titled as : (1)Music India Limited v. The Pyramid and others and (2) gramophone 'Company of India Limited v. The Pyramid and others. Both these cases are pending adjudication before Shri Jaswant Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.(2) In brief the two complaints are to the effect that M/s. Gramophone Company of India and Music India Limited have their registered 'offices in Calcutta and Bombay respectively. They have their branches in Delhi. They make and produce records containing musical, literary and artistic thesis and have the exclusive right to reproduce the works contained in the records directly from the plates or the records manufactured and made by them under the various names. A large scale piracy of their copyright is sound is taking place on tapes and cassettes. The pirates have not to pay anything to the musicians and other artists. All that they need is a cheap...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Poineer Soap Factory
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT237
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) This is a suit filed by Hindustan Lever Limited against Poincer Soap Industries and its partner/proprietor, Shri N. K. Bansal, for perpetual injunction, infringement of trade mark, passing off and rendition of accounts, etc. (2) It is the case of the plaintiff that it is the leading soap manufacturer of India. It is registered proprietor of eleven trade marks. One of them is Sun word parse under No. 147011 in Glass 3 in respect of bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use, detergents (not for use in industrial process) and soaps. This trade mark has been renewed since 19th January, 1951, from time to time and is subsisting on the Register of Trade Marks. The other trade mark is Sunlight with the device of rays of sun under No 87107 in Glass 3 in respect of soaps and substances for laundry use. This mark is also subsisting and has been renewed from time to time from 9th October, 1943. Other trade marks are Sun Silk, Sunshine, Sun BEAM. Four of ...
The Wimco Limited Vs. Meena Match Industroies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi537; ILR1984Delhi121; 1983RLR631
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) 'THE Wimco Limited' is public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913 (for short called Wimco). They carry on the business of manufacturing and selling, inter alia, of match boxes'. They claim to be one of the famous manufacturers of matches and the total turnover for the years 1975 to 1980 is given in paragraph 3 of the plaint. Wimco claim to have developed, in order to distinguish their products from those of others and in order to improve the aesthetic appearance of their match boxes, a pattern/design and Chemically applied it to both sides of the panels of their match boxes by mechanical means. This pattern is in rectangular form with multiple diamond-shaped spots and Wimco gave it a name to this pattern as 'HOT SPOTS'. Wimco made an application foe registration of this design claiming to be new and original design under the provisions of the Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter called the Act) in class 5 of the Schedule. The applic...
Raj NaraIn Aggarwal Vs. Baij Nath Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi155; 1983(5)DRJ196
A.B. Rohatgi, J. (1) The single question raised in this petition by the tenant Raj Narain Aggarwal is whether the amendment of the written statement was wrongly refused by the Additional Rent Controller.(2) These are the facts. The respondent landlord, Baij Nath Khanna, brought a petition for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required bona fide by him for occupation as a residence for himself and for members of the family dependent on him under Section 14(I)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Act'). The tenant is contesting the petition on several grounds. One of the grounds of defense in the written statement is that the landlord is not the owner of premises. (3) After the case had been set down for the evidence of the landlord, an application was made by the tenant on 31-3-1982 under Order Vi Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code praying that he may be allowed to amend the written statement so as to incorporate the plea that the landlord Baij Nath Khann...
Smt. Ram Wati Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1681
ORDERH.L. Anand, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Crl. P.C. is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, made on April 22, 1983 attaching the property in dispute under Section 146 (1) of the Crl. p. C. and for the temporary restoration of possession of the property to the petitioner until the decision of the Court with regard to the actual possession of the property at the material time.2. Premises bearing No. 1140/47, D.D.A. Flats. Kalkaji. New Delhi was allotted to Smt. Sharda respondent No. 2. She has been staying in Karachi along with her husband, who works in the Indian Embassy there. Smt. Sharda had apparently left the premises in the care of one Jagbir, who resides in another premises in the vicinity it is a common case that Jagbir let it out to Smt. Ramwati, the petitioner and Ramwati and the other members of the family, including her husband, had been in peaceful possession of the premises for the last 3 years and continued to be in suc...
Golden Paper Udyog (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC799DTri(Delhi)
1. The two questions that had been raised for decision in the instant Revision application transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an Appeal pursuant to the provisions in Sec. 35 (P) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are- (a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the process of bituminising duty paid kraft paper by bonding with duty paid bitumen, amounts to "manufacture" or involves "any process incidental to or ancillary to the completion of manufacture" in terms of the definition of "manufacture" in the Act, (b) If it does, is duty paid kraft paper on bonding with duty paid bitumen, assessable to duty again in terms of Item 17(2) of the First Schedule to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Schedule), or the residuary Item 68 thereof.2. The facts necessary to appreciate and determine the aforesaid questions are,- (b) the layers of such kraft paper are bonded with bitumen (duty paid) as the bonding agent or adhesive ; (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »