Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-21-1982
Reported in : 21(1982)DLT46; ILR1982Delhi801
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The founding deed : This is a dispute between father on the one side and mother and sons on the other, The plaintiff Shri R. P. Kapur has instituted asuit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against a trust styled Kaushalya. Educational Trust and its trustees, Shrimati Sheila Kapur, his wife and Lov alias Vivek Kapur and Ashok Kapur, his sons. His wife and two sons are the trustees. They are defendants to the suit. The plaintiff, R. P. Kapur, along with one another person has sought directions for the administration of the trust and for framing a scheme. (2) The plaintiffs urge that Kaushalya Educational Trust is a trust of a public character of a Charitable nuture and that the trustees are misappropriating the trust properties. They have alleged various 'misdeeds' of the trustees. As required by the amended Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure leave of the Court is sought to institute the suit. The defendants resist the grant of leave on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-25-1982
Reported in : 1983CriLJ495; 22(1982)DLT33; 1982RLR553
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The Facts : The plaintiff, Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen, owns property No. 4405 in Darya Ganj, Delhi. He says that he gave a portion of his property on lease and license to one Mrs. Kamla Mathur wife of Shri Rama Shankar Mathur. The plaintiff alleges that Mrs. Mathur was making illegal construction in the property. On 6-4-1981 he brought a suit in the court of the subordinate judge, Mr. S. N. Gupta, for permanent injunction restraining Mrs. Mathur, her servants and agents, from carrying on any construction activities in the property. In. the suit the plaintiff made an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The subordinate judge granted a temporary injunction against the defendant, her agents and servants.. on 6-4-1981. On 6-6-81 he modified the injunction order. From this order they, the plaintiff and the defendants, appealed to the court of the senior sub judge. Those appeals were dismissed.(2) Now the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-13-1982
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi548
Prakash Narain, C.J. (1) The import, manuFacture,distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics are, inter alia,regulated by the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafterreferred to as the Act. Sections 6, 12 and 33 of the Actempower the Central Government to frame rules in themanner and to the extent mentioned in the said sections.Such rules have been promulgated and are known as theDrags and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, hereinafter referred toas the Rules.(2) The Central Government by a notification No. O.S.R.27(E) dated 17/01/1981 made certain amendmentsto the Rules. The amended rules partly came into force on 1/08/1981 and partly on the date of the publication ofthe amended rules in the Official Gazette.' The challengebefore us is to these amendments, the contention being thatthe amendments contained in the notification dated 17/01/1981 are illegal, invalid, ultra virus and unenforceable.The consequent prayer is to quash the said notification andrestrain the Central Government and its off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-23-1982
Reported in : ILR1982Delhi925; [1982]138ITR216(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) These six income-tax references at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, pertain to the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 and 1972-73. The point in issue in each of them pertains to the question of doductibility of royalty. The question posed for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (to be referred to in short as the 'the Act',) in the first of the two years is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the royalty amounts paid by the assessed to the foreign collaborators for the assessment years 19.65-66 and 1966-67 were of revenue nature ?'(2) The question posed in the subsequent three years is identical except that the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 have been inserted in place of 1965-66 and 3966-67. The question posed for the year 1972-73 is substantially the same, though sightly differently worded and is set out:WHETHERon the facts a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-03-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi81; 23(1983)DLT109
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is an appeal from the order of a learned single Judge dated 23-9-1971. (2) The case has a long chequered history. Smt. Sarupi and Shame Singh were the owners of 99 bighas 13 bids was of land in village Khanpur in equal shares. On 6-8-1963 the appellant, Delhi Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., (the society) purchased from Shrimati Sarupi her half share in the land for Rs. 77,000. On 4-10-65 the society's name was mutated in the revenue records. (3) On 16-10-1969 seven persons Puran. Nathua, Yad Ram and four sons of Kalley, namely, Narain Singh, Ram Pershad, Har Pershad and Dhani (shortly referred to as Puran and others) brought a suit under section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (the Act). Tins was a claim for the declaration of bhumidari rights in their favor on the ground that they were in possession of 8 bighas of land which forms part of the land purchased by the society from Smt. Sarupi. Puran and others alleged that they wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-29-1982
Reported in : 1983(1)Crimes248; 1983(4)DRJ224; 1983RLR65
Leila Seth, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for quashing the proceedings instituted against the petitioner in case No. 1456-C of 1979 pending in the court of Mr. M.L. Mehta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The matter is an offshoot of the volatile 'foreigners issue in Assam.2. The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Police Service. When the petition was filed, he was the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Nowgong, Assam. However, at the relevant time he was the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Gauhati, Assam.3. On 31st December, 1979, Parthajoy Das, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Barpeta, Assam. The complainant pertained to the action taken in the early hours of 10th December, 1979 by the petitioner and respondents 3, 4, and 5 ; when respondent No. 1 and a crowd of 1500 to 2)00 persons were trying to prevent Begum Abida Ahmed from filing her nomination papers as a Lok Sabha candid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1982
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi661
Sachar, J. (1) The dispute in the present batch of petitions being C.W. 5911982, 18411982 & 18311982 which will all be disposed of by common judgment relate to the, impact on seniority and consequently on further promotion of the higher posts in the Railways. This is the result of the order of 4-1-1982 issued by the President of India by which certain modification has been made in the earlier order of 15-2-1960 issued by the President. (2) The broad question which has been convassed and has to bs decided by us is whether it was permissible for the Presi- dent to review and modify the decision taken 2 decades back and even if permissible whether there was any fustsSication in law for reviewing the same and reopening the matters whidi had beer: settled long time back more especially by the imple- inentation and CQjitinuous application of the earlier principles laid down in 15-2-1960 circular. (3) Before dealing with the matter in detail it will be apt to reproduce the relevant portions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-24-1982
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi250
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This suit by two brothers claiming a declaration in respect of immoveable properties and for possession of a part thereof and recovery of damages mesne profits in respect of the use and occupation of a part of it, inter alia, raises an interesting question as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which a limited estate, held by a Hindu widow, may mature into an absolute estate by virtue of the provision of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.(2) The facts and circumstances leading to the suit are, by and large, beyond controversy. One Umrao Singh, who held joint Hindu family properties as the sole surviving coparcener, executed a Will on January 9, 1927, duly registered on January 27, 1927, in terms whereof he bequeathed one of the properties absolutely in favor of Kalawati, widow of his pre-deceased son, Onkar Prasad, and created two successive life estates in respect of other properties, one in favor of Kalawati aforesaid, and the other in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-05-1982
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(Del)234; ILR1982Delhi891
Mrs. Leila Seth, J. 1. The question posed for our consideration by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (to be referred to in short as 'the Act'), are as follow : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs debited by the assessed to 'Deferred Revenue Expenditure, Technical know-how Payment Account' was expenditure of a capital nature 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessed-company was not entitled to depreciation in respect of the said amount of Rs. 4 lakhs 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,09,191 paid by the assessed to Brotherhoods Ltd., represented expenditure of a capital nature 4. If answer to question No. 3 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed-company was entitled to depreciation i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-26-1982
Reported in : 22(1982)DLT22
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Ajit Singh, appellant challenges the judgment and order of the District Judge, Delhi dated 1st March, 1977 dismissing his application for the grant of Probate of the Will dated 22nd October, 1962 alleged to have been executed by his father Arjan Singh. (2) On 17th May, 1972 the appellant filed an application for the grant of Probate alleging that his father Arjan Singh had executed his last will and Testament on 22nd October, 1962 bequeathing Plot No. I-88A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and one Shop No. 119, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to him, that Arjan Singh died on 12th April, 1963, that the Will was attested by the witnesses. (3) Nand Singh, one of the brothers of the appellant in his written statement pleaded that his father never executed any Will during his life time, he died intestate on 12th April, 1963, that the said Will was a forged document, that in 1965 the appellant along with his mother and sister Kaushalaya Devi had filed a suit for declaration ...
Tag this Judgment!