Delhi Court November 1984 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.
Madan Mohan Lall Shriram (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD21(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by Madan Mohan Lall Shriram (P.) Ltd. raises three objections against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal relates to the assessment year 1971-72, the previous year of which ended on 30-6-1970. The asses-see, a private limited company, has income from business, dividends, rent and also managing agency remuneration from limited company called Bengal Potteries.2. The first objection in this appeal relates to determination of the relief under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The income by way of dividend was Rs. 26,27,907. The assessee claimed relief under Section 80M on this entire amount but the ITO deducted from this dividend a sum by way of interest of Rs. 5,99,340, said to have been paid on the money borrowed for investment in shares and allowing 60 per cent on the balance, allowed relief of Rs. 12,15,244.The question, thus, was whether the relief should be allowed with reference to the gross dividend received by the assessee o...
Manjeet Kaur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT31
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This criminal revision by Smt Manjit Kaur is directed against an order dated 5-3-1984 of Sh. P.L. Singla, Additional Sessions Judge whereby she and her husband H.S. Suri were directed to be charged under Section 302/34 Jpc for the murder of Arun Kumar Gupta on the night between 26th and 27th August, 1982. The charge was framed on 12-3-1984.(2) The background of the prosecution case is that Arun Kumar Gupta was having a factory at Shahdara, and manufacturing copper and super enamel wires. He had got some machines installed there, which were not working properly and as such he engaged the services of H.S. Suri for their rectification and putting them in order. An amount of Rs. 50,000.00 was said to have been paid to him for this purpose. H.S. Suri had a similar factory of his own in partnership with others. H.S. Suri was, however, able to set right two of the machines, while the third did not still operate properly. In the meanwhile Arun Kumar Gupta decided to dispose ...
Wahid HussaIn Vs. Nisar Ahmed
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi457; 27(1985)DLT202; 1985RLR177
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) The short question of law raised in this petition is whether an application seeking permission of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 for instituting any suit or proceedings for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any premises in a slum area is competent when an order for eviction has already been obtained under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (2) The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner filed, on or about August 7, 1980, a petition for eviction against the respondent for recovery of possession of the premises No. 504, Gali Matia Mabal Jama Masjid, Delhi (for short called premises in dispute) before the Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'). This petition was filed without obtaining the requisite permission from the Competent Authority under th...
Chander Prakash and anr. Vs. Om Prakash Bajaj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi116; 1984(7)DRJ251; 1984RLR657
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) A short pedigree table shall be useful in under- standing the relationship between the parties and the dispute : Jagan Nath I Smt. Sewa Dai (wife) _____________________________I (Deft. No, 5) 11 Prem Nath - Pran Nath Chander Parkash (Deft. No. 2) (Deft. No. 3) (Deft. No. 4) (Petr. herein) (2) Defendants No. 6 to 8 are the sisters of defendants No. 2 to 4. Defendant No. 7 Parmila Kumari is the wife of the plaintiff Om Prakash Bajaj. (3) Messrs Jagan Nath Prem Nath is a partnership firm of which defendant? No. 2 to 4 and their father Jagan Nath were the partners. Jagan Nath died in 1974 and the partnership was reconstituted and defendants No. 2 to 4 and their mother Smt. Sewa Dai became the partners. (4) The plaintiff Om Prakash Bajaj has filed a suit against the firm and defendants No. 2 to 8 for recovery of Rs. 18,500.00 66 P. The Case' of the plaintiff is that the firm was in financial difficulties and from time to time he was giving loan by way of deposits and t...
Abdul Latif and ors. Vs. Mohammad Siddiq
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT423
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) M/S. Mohammed Hasan and Mohammad Siddiq, a partnership firm was constituted of Abdul Karim (now deceased) and Mohammad Siddiq, defendant as partners. It was engaged in the business of general merchandise but principally in the manufacture and sale of umbrellas. The deed of partnership is dated 14-12.1949. Abdul Karim died on 4-8-1982. The partners had following share ratio of profit and losses : 1. Mohd. Siddiq -75% 2. Abdul Karim -25% (2) Admittedly, even after the death of Abdul Karim the erstwhile business of the partnership is being carried on by the defendant at the same premises as heretobefore. (3) The plaintiffs as legal representatives of Abdul Karim have filed this suit firstly for passing a preliminary decree declaring the proportionate shares of the plaintiffs/parties and secondly for passing a final decree directing the defendant to render accounts of the firm and to allot the plaintiffs their shares with interest thereon. Along with the suit the plaint...
Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: 1985(20)ELT272(Del); ILR1985Delhi612
Aggarwal, J. (1) The petitioner M/s. Delhi Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic aerated waters of various types such as Thumps Lip, Limca, Gold Spot, Rim Zim, Bisleri Soda, etc. The above said Products are subject to excise duty under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The appropriate entry (item I-D) prior to 17th March 1972 was as follows : 'Aerated waters whether or not flavoured or sweetened and whether or not containing vegetable or fruit juice or Rate of duty 10 per cent fruit. ad valorem With effect from 17th March 1972 the rate of duty was raised from 10% ad valorem to 20% ad valorem. The same day the Union of India issued a notification exempting all types of aerated waters extert those in the manufacture of which 'be ended flavouring concentrates' in any form were used, from the excise duty in excess of 10% ad valorem as it orginally stood. The effect of the notification was that from 17th March 1972 aerated ...
Ram Sarup Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi318; 27(1985)DLT134; 1985RLR133
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Many, years ago there lived a man called Ganga Sahai in village Bhartal near Delhi. He owned much land in the village. In 1913 he purchased land bearing. Khasra No. 1177 from Ranjit and Ram Singh, sons of Gulab Singh. They were the predecessors-in-interest of the present respondents 2 to 5 to this appeal. This land Ganga Sahai purchased without share in shamlet deh. In revenue record he got mutation effected in his name. Ganga Sahai had no son. He, thereforee, gifted the land to his daughter's son, Ram Sarup, the present appellant in 1928. This he did by means of a registered gift deed dated 15-3-1928. Mutation was accordingly effected in favor of Ram Sarup. On this land admeasuring 13 bighas-7 bids was Ganga Sahai had built a dharamshala, a well and a piao. (2) On 29tb May, 1932 before a gathering of the people of the village Ganga Sahai's daughter Mst. Khem Kaur, on behalf of her minor son, the present appellant, made a statement that there was no dharamsh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›