Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-14-1979
Reported in : [1982]133ITR338(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The following questions have been referred for our decision under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no sufficient cause which prevented the assessed from filing the appeals within time ?' (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in not admitting the appeals and in dismissing the same as barred by time ?' 2. It is necessary to state a few facts. The assessment years are 1955-56 and 1957-58. On December 21, 1966, the IAC passed orders under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, imposing penalties of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 4,000, repectively, on the assessed for the above two assessment years. At the end of his order, the IAC directed the ITO to issue necessary demand notices and challans and collect the amount of penalty. In pursuance of the order of the IAC, the ITO issued notices of demand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-20-1979
Reported in : ILR1980Delhi215
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a suit against infringement of registered design of electric toaster of the plaintiffs, for passing off and rendition of accounts and damages.(2) The plaintiffs are M/s. J. N. Electricals (India) a partnership firm, manufacturing various electrical goods, including electric toaster for the last so many years.(3) The plaintiffs started manufacturing and selling electric toaster of a design which they got registered vide No. 140873 dated April 23, 1973.(4) It is alleged in the plaint that apart from distinctive features of the electric toaster of the plaintiffs, the shpe, configuration, upper view and side view of the plaintiffs' toaster are new and original and protected under the Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter called 'the Act').(5) It is further averred in the plaint that the arrangement of the outer sheet of the plaintiff's toaster has been made into two sheets which is quite novel. The upper portion of the said sheet is approximately 1/3rd and the lower...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-1979
Reported in : 1980RLR39
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. (1) By this application the appellants assert that no decree need be prepared by this court while deciding an appeal under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). Impatient of court procedure they say : 'Why frame a decree in appeal. Do as the court of the District Judge does. A judgment is enough.' Now in all appeals under s. 54 decided by this court decrees are prepared. It is said that this is not required in law. The argument is that as in the case of the district court, so in the case of the appellate court, the decision amounts to a decree as is provided in s. 26 of the Act. This is the point that arises for decision on this application.(2) S. 26 appears in part Iii of the Act which is headed as 'Reference to Court and procedure thereon.' An important section of this part is S. 18. That provides for reference to the court. 'Court' means a principal civil court of original jurisdiction [S. 3(d)]. The court of district judge is the principal civi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-13-1979
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas456(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi249
Sachar, J.(1) Is the Central Government under a legal obligation to give a hearing to the undertaking before making a reference under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (to be called the Act) to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (to be called the Commission) for an enquiry and report is one of the main questions that calls for decision in these three Writ Petitions namely C.W. 782/74, C.W. 547/74 and C.W. 1309/73, which were heard together. Another question of law that arises relates to the scope and extent of power of the Central Government and the Commission respectively and the areas that are carved out to each of them which reference is made under section 31 of the Act. The main restions of law being common to all the petitions will bo disposed of by this order. There were certain special facts relating to each petition which were argued by their counsel in their respective petitions and we shall deal with tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-23-1979
Reported in : ILR1981Delhi939
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This application for taking proceedings for allegedly committing contempt of this court was moved by one Raj Prakash against M/s. Choudbry Plastic Works, Gali Bama, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and Mangat Ram Choudhry who is the proprietor of M/s. Choudhry Plastic Works, by invoking Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, .1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act. We issued notice of the application to the two parties mentioned above. A reply supported by an affidavit was filed by Mangat Ram Choudhry on his behalf and on behalf of M/s. Choudhry Plastic Works submitting that no contempt of court had been committed, as alleged, and setting out the circumstances in which the alleged default was committed. An unqualified apology was also tendered. Raj Prakash filed a rejoinder to this reply reiterating that Mangat Ram Choudhry had dommitted contempt of court and asserting that the affidavit filed was false. It was further contended that apology with a justification could no...
Tag this Judgment!