Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT220
I.D. Dua and M.M Ismail, JJ.(1) This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the Order of a Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dated 30th July, 1957 rejecting the plaint in suit No. 92/91 of 1955/57 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) The Plaintiff filed the present suit for the recovery of bs. 34,000.00 with future interest at 6 % per annum, compound interest with halt yearly rests, from the date of suit till realisation. To this suit, one firm M/s. Ganesh Das R. B. Kidar Nath, which carried business as Mil! owners, Contracttos etc. at Lahore, Gujrat etc. in West Punjab and now carries on business at Ambala, Bombay, Delhi and toher places in India (service to be etjected through defendants 2 to , proprietors/partners thereof) was the first defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that commencing from 10th February 1945, the defendant No. 1 firm belonging to the joint Hindu family comprising of defendants Nos. 2-5 and their eldest brtoher Kanwar Raj Nath had an overdraft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi121; 1967CriLJ1497
ORDER(1) On 6th May, 1954, Ramlal Amritalal Parekh and Amritalal Lalbhai Parekh were intercepted by the Customs Officers near the Marine Lines Station, Bombay and their search resulted in recovery of 90 bars of gold weighing 10 tolas each. On further enquiry the Customs Officers found that one Pal Dhungal was the agent in Bombay of the petitioner, a resident of Goa, for receiving and disposing of gold sent to him. As result of the enquiries proceedings were initiated against various persons, including the petitioner and show cause ntoices issued to them. By order dated 9th April, 1957, the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay directed confiscation of 1400 tolas of gold, which had been disowned by all the persons concerned under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. A personal penalty of Rs.1,89,000/- was also imposed on the petitioner under the aforesaid provision. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, preferred an appeal to the Centra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT500
Dua, J. (1) These three writ petitions :Civil Writs Nos. 569-D of 1959, 20-D and 21-D of 1960) raising, as they do, common question of law, are being dispossed of by one order As a matter of fact, the petitioner's learned counsel has addressed arguments only in C. W. No. 569-D of 1959, it being conceded that the toher two cases would stand or fall with it. (2) In C. W. No. 569-D of 1959, five applications under secton 21, Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) were made to the Authority under the Act for the recovery of earned wages by four applicants, two applications apparently being by the same person Shri Krishna Baldev (Respondent No. 4 in this Court) for two different periods. These applications were contested by the Unique Mtoor and General Insurance Company Ltd., the present petitioner in this Court ?.nd by Shri Ram Chandra H. Kubba, Ex-Divisional Manager of the said Company. Shri Ram Chandra H. Kubba, it may be pointed out, has beed pleaded as re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1968]68ITR159(Delhi)
This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as &quto;the Act&quto;).The question of law, referred to this court for its opinion, is :&quto;Whether the dividend income, on the aforesaid 988 shares of the Britania Biscuit Co. Ltd., Calcutta, belonging to the assesseds wife is assessable in the hands of the assessed under section 16(3) (a) (iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?&quto;The facts material for the purpose of deciding this reference are these :On November 10, 1942, the assesseds wife, Smt. Kailashwati Khanna, purchased out of her own funds from one Raghbir Singh 4 share in the Delhi Biscuit Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 500, each share being of the face value of Rs. 125. During the year 1948, Smt. Kailashwati Khanna purchased 52 more shares from the Delhi Biscuit Co. Ltd. from out of the funds provided by the assessed. In 1951, the Delhi Biscuit Co., Ltd. sold the concern to Britania Biscuit Co. Ltd., Calcutta, for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1968]69ITR65(Delhi)
In this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter reference to as &quto;the Act&quto;), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (Delhi Bench) &quto;C&quto;, has submitted to this court, for its opinion, the following question of law :&quto;Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 18,000 received by the assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month, under the terms of the agreement, dated March 12, 1951, is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessed.&quto;Shri Lal Chand Jain is the assessed in this case. Till March 12, 1951, he carried on the business of manufacture and sale of bidis under the trade makes and trade names of &quto;Pan Ka Ekka, Seth Biri No. 311&quto; and &quto;Divi&quto;. Those trade marks were his exclusive properties. On March 12, 1951, by means of a registered deed of agreement, he transferred his interest in the business in question along with the goodwill as well as the stock-in-trade to one Seth ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1968]67ITR175(Delhi)
ORDER(1) These are references under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A common question of law is referred to this Court in these cases by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) and that question is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case, action under Section 34(1) (b) could be initiated in the case of a shareholder by serving on him a ntoice under the said Section even before an order under Section 23A (1) of the Act is passed in the assessment of the Company?'(2) The assesseds in these cases are shareholders in M/s. Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. (Private) Limited, New Delhi. The assessment year, with which we are concerned in the case is 1954-55, the account-period being the year ending March 31, 1954. The I. T. O. initiated proceedings under S. 23A of the Act against M/s. Uttam Singh Dual and Co. as per his ntoices dated March 3, 1957. But an order under that section was passed only on January 20, 1960. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi233
1. This is a defendants appeal from the judgment and decree of a learned subordinate judge 1st Class, Delhi, whereby the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 6,434-10-9 was decreed with costs against the defendants with interest at 4 percent per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization.2. The plaintiff Ram Chander, proprietor of Jindal Oil Mills, Delhi-Shahdra, pleaded in the plaint that on 3-5-1954, the defendants Messrs. Ram Saran Das Raja Ram, whose partner Raja Ram was also imp leaded as defendant No. 2, entered into a contract of purchase of one tank wagon (about 500 maunds) of mustardoil at Rs. 61 per maund F. O. R. Delhi-Shahdra (Bilti cut) with a condition of 1/2 per cent leakage. The tank was to be dispatched to Kirkand, the place of business of the defendants. The plaintiff dispatched one tank wagon weighing 505 maunds of mustard oil in accordance with this contract as per R/R No. 149067 from Delhi Shahdra to Kirkend. The R/R was sent to the defendants thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi141
(1) This is a plaintiff's regular first appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge Delhi dated 1-6-1961 dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts and toher consequential relief against the two defendants (respondents in this Court). (2) According to the plaintiff, a company registered under the English Companies Act, with its registered office in Glassgow, Sctoland (U.K.), manufacturers and deals in sewing and embroidery threads of all kinds. The goods manufactured by the plaintiff are sold throughout the world under various Trade Marks. Its selling agents in India are Messrs. The Central Agency Ltd., with their principal office at Bombay and deptos in toher big towns including Delhi, where it is situated at Garstin Bastion Road. The plaintiff claims to be the registered owner of the Trade Mark 'Anchor Handicraft Box Top', among toher Trade Marks registered in its name under Class 28 in respect of threads of all kinds. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT642
I.D. Dua, J. (1) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution directed against the order of Competent Authority, dated 23rd May, 1966, granting to Messrs Suraj Bhan Prem Raj permission to execute the order passed by the Rent Controller on 30th November, 1964, for eviction of Messrs Pioneer Chemical Company, the petitioner in this Court. (2) The first ground on which the application was admitted has nto been pressed by the learned counsel, conceding that this is covered by a decision of this Court in which it has been held that the Competent Authority is nto obliged to take oral evidence. (3) The only toher point which has been pressed before me is that the learned Competent Authority has committed some factual mistakes, one of them being the observation that Shri H. K. Gupta, has nto stated in his affidavit any relationship with the firm. Shri R. L. Aggarwal very eloquently contends that this assumption by the learned Competent Authority is wrong in fact and if once thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT321
I.D. Dua, C.J. (1) The .Plaintiff has appealed to this Court from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Delhi, dated 5th September, 1960 dismissing the plaintifi.appellant's suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents and servants, restraining them from exhibiting the film 'New Delhi' at any place whatsoever and for accounts of the profits made by the defendants up to the dale of the suit.(2) The plaintiff who is an architect by profession and carries on the said business in the panne ship under the name and style of M/S. Anand Apte and Jhabvala at Delhi, also claims to be a Playwright, Dramatist and producer of Stage plays. He claims to have written and produced at Delhi and toher places plays entitled 'Desh Hamara', 'Azadi' ''Elections' and 'Ham Hindustani', having produced several toher plays as well. The present litigation is concerned with the play 'Hum Hindustani' which, according to the plaintiff s case, was written by him in Hindi in or a...
Tag this Judgment!