Delhi Court May 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.
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. J. and S. P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR581(Delhi)
Kapur, J. 1. The case referred to us is concerned with assessment year 1968-69 and accounting period ended on August 31, 1967. The assessed was doing the business of exhibiting cinema pictures two theatres which it had taken on hire in 1959 were the Filmistan and Sudarshan in Lucknow. The rent being paid for these cinemas was RS. 2,674 and Rs. 1,000 respectively. The income from the cinema business was assessed under the heading 'Income from business'. 2. On April 13, 1966, there was an agreement with M/s. Khanna Financiers of Delhi, which allowed that firm to exhibit picture for a period of 104 weeks at the rate of 28 shows per week, the weekly hire charge being Rs. 5,000. This was treated as a 'lease agreement' by the ITO. 3. However, it is not strictly speaking a lease agreement as noticed by the Tribunal, but rather, an agreement to operate the cinema. 4. The agreement provided that the office, management, staff, electricity and other expenses for running the cinemas were to be bor...
Parkash Lal Vs. Shori Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT458
M.L. Jain, J.(1) In April 1948, Parkasblal, Shorilal and Ram Nath began a partnership business in the name and style of M/s Raj Kamal Electric Press. In November 1949, Ram Nath left the partnership. The other two continued. This is clear from the partnership deed (Ex DW-1/P-2) dated 1-7-1955. (2) On 2-8-1969 the aforesaid remaining two partners entered into an agreement (Ex. DW-1/P-1) by which they appointed their friend Radha Kishan Arora as an arbitrator to settle the disputes relating to dissolution of the partnership. Later on, they entered into a deed of dissolution on 8-8-1969, by which the name, goodwill and other assets of the firm were assigned to Shorilal. All disputes stood resolved except those relating to a shop and a plot. (I)A shop No. 119 Indira Market was taken on rent from Kishan Singh by the firm. Kishan Singh had taken up proceedings for ejectment. Those proceedings were to be defended by both the partners at their joint cost in equal proportion. During the pendency...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Baldev Raj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi439; 26(1984)DLT213; 1984(7)DRJ101; 1984RLR631
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against order dated 4th January, 1984 of an Additional Rent Controller rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 25th August 1983 made under Order Xvii Rule 1 read with Order Xvii Rules 3, 17 & 17A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for recalling a witness to prove certain documents. (2) The facts germane to the decision of this revision petition succinctly are that the petitioner filed an application for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises in question viz., portion of property No. C-11/ 146, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, which is a Govt. built property. His contention was that he was a co-owner/landlord of the premises in question being one of the legal representatives of his mother, Smt. Parvati who was the owner of the said property under a conveyance and a lease-deed executed by the President of India in her favor. He filed photostat copies of the certified copies of the le...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Del)101; [1984]149ITR425(Delhi)
Wadhwa J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Delhi-II), New Delhi, the following question has been referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the order of the ITO under section 195(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was without jurisdiction and, thereforee, null and void ?' 2. The Jay Engineering Works Limited, the assessed, was incorporated as a public limited company. It entered into an agreement with M/s Arnaldo Vigerallin S.P.A., stated to be an Italian company, having its principal office of business in Italy. As will be seen from the statement of case, the agreement was entered into in connection with the assessed company's desire to manufacture Zig Zag Sewing Machines in India. It was agreed between the parties that the Italian company shall assist the assessed-company in thei...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1984
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi758
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The only question which arises for consideration in this case and in the connected cases, which were all heard together, is whether the dispute with regard to the demand by Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, respondent No. 2, for payment of increased fuel adjustment charges can be referred to arbitration or not. (2) Main arguments were addressed in Suit No. 5T8-A of 1983 and, thereforee, it is necessary to deal with the facts of this case only. It is agreed by the counsel for the parties that the decision in this suit will govern the other cases also. (3) According to the petitioner, it entered into an agreement on 26th September, 1972 with respondent No. 2 for the supply of electric energy. Clause 15(a) of the said agreement pertains to the payment for supply of energy. The said subclause reads as under : '15(A)The Consumer shall pay each month to the Undertaking for electrical energy supplied during the preceding month such amount as shall be calculated and ascerta...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, New Delhi Vs. the Jay Engineeri ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1984
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi334
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Delhi-11), New Delhi, the following question has been referred to us under S. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-11, New Delhi v. 337 he Jay Engineering Works Ltd., Delhi. A 1961 (for short 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C : 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 195(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction and thereforee null and void ?'(2) The Jay Engineering Works Limited, the assessed, was incorporated as a public limited company. It entered into an agreement with M/s. Amaldo Vigerelli S.P.A., stated to be an Italian Company, having its' principal office of business in Itlay. As will be seen from the statement of case, the agreement was entered into in connection with the assessed company's desire to manufacture Zig Zag ...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1984
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi56
Avadh Behari, J. (1) This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge dated 16th September, 1967.(2) These are the facts. The appellant, the original plaint iff No. 2, and Indian Cable Co. Ltd. plaintiff No. I, brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 20,000 on account of damages for the non-delivery of a consignment consisting of one cable drum containing 457.2 metres of cable. The goods were dispatched from Tata Nagar in West Bengal on 19th February, 1962. The place of destination was New Delhi, the goods arrived at New Delhi on 17th July, 1962. They were in a burnt condition. The plaintiffs refused to take delivery of the goods without assessment of damans. The Railway did not agree to the procedure of assessment'. So there was no delivery of the goods to the consignee, Delhi Municipal Gorpration. The plaintiffs brought a suit on 16th September, 1963 claiming a decree of Rs. 20,000 on account of damages the measure of damages being the price of the goods burnt d...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Usha Kumari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi347; 26(1984)DLT199; 1984(7)DRJ116; 1984RLR663
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Usha Kumari filed an application on 22-4-1976, the court of Judicial Magistrate, Panipat under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenace that she was married to Ashok Kumar on 1-3-1975 and lived with him for 6 months in Kalka Ji, Delhi. 0) 4-12-1975 Ashok Kumar and his parents left her at her father's residence in Panipat. At that time she was pregnant and later on delivered a baby girl on 11-1-1976 in the Civil Hospital, Panipat. inspire of the information of the birth of the child sent to Ashok Kumar, nobody turned up to fetch her. (2) While this application stood adjourned to 5-6-1976, Ashok Kumar filed the present suit in Delhi on 1-6-1977 against her, her father Shanti Lal Sehgal and Bashir Ahmed for declaration and permanent injunction that she and her father be restrained from representing and asserting that she was his wife. He averred that the defendant claimed that she was married to him in Panipat on 1-3-1975 but the fact is that he never married her and ceremony ...
Kamla Devi Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1984
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT220; 1984(2)SLJ182(Delhi)
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This judgment will also dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1724/79, 1835/79, 1836/79 and 1837/79. The short point that requires consideration in all these petitioners is : whether the seniority of the petitioners is to be reckoned from the date of their initial appointments in the Schools or from the date of take over of said Schools by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (2) The petitioner, Smt. Kamla Devi Gupta was appointed as Asstt. Teacher in Gandhi Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sarai Rohilla Delhi on 1-9-54. She was confirmed as such by order dt. 15-3-65. The School fell into certain financial difficulties and there were reports of mis-management and as such it was taken over Along with the staff on 1-5-66 by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner was paid salary according to existing pay-scale as before. 1970, the seniority list of Assistant Teachers was calculated and the petitioner was given seniority with reference to the date of her initial appointmen...
Christian Children's Fund Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT117
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This petition seeks an exemption from the operation of the house-tax and general tax livable on the property which it owns at Nehru Place on the ground that the building is exempt as it is used by a charitable body. We find that the Assessor & Collector had informed the petitioner that the building was not exempt from the general tax because the building was not being used for a charitable purpose. This information is contained in two letters dated 6-10-1983 and 14-3-84 issued by the Assistant Assessor and Collector and Joint Assessor and Collector, M.C.D. The second letter indicates that the exemption was being refused because the building did not qualify under Section 154 of the Act. We agree with this view. The Section requires that the land or building or the portion of the land or building which is used for charitable purpose is exempt and no other. As the building is being used for office purpose, the exemption could not be granted.the petition is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »