Court : Delhi
Reported in : 58(1995)DLT250; 1995RLR373
arun kumar, j.(1) by this petition, the petitioner landlord has challenged an order dated 29/10/1994 passed by the additional rent controller, delhi allowing an application under order i rule 10 civil procedure code to implead shree krishna sangeet mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the 'mahavidyalaya') throughsmt. sarvada acharya, principal/superintendent as a party. the petitioner landlord had filed an eviction petition under section 14(l)(e) of the delhi rent control act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') against vishwa nath sharma,respondent. vishwa nath sharma filed an application dated 9/04/1994 for leave to defend the eviction petition under section 25b(5) of the act through smt.sarvada acharya acting as attorney on behalf of vishwa nath sharma. the affidavit m support of the said application was also filed by the same smt. sarvadaacharya. this application was filed through shri inderjit singh,advocate. during the pendency of the said application for leave to defend, an application under order i rule 10 civil procedure code was filed on 8th july, 1994 on behalf of the mahavidyalaya through smt. sarvada acharya by shri inderjit singh, advocate for impleading the said mahavidyalaya as a party. by the impugned order, the said application was allowed and 15 days' time was granted to the newly imploded party to file affidavit seeking leave to defend. the petitioner landlord has challenged the said order by way of present petition.(2) in the application under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi677
jagjit singh, j. (1) on september 7. 1972 sri chand presented an application under order xliv rule 1 of the code of civil procedure, accompanied by a memorandum of appeal, for being allowed to appeal as a pauper against the order, dated july 20, 1972 made by shri j.d. jain, additional district judge, rejecting his claim for sharing the compensation awarded in respect of 2 bighas and 18 bids was of land. along with the said application another application (civil miscellaneous no. 723) was also submitted by him with a request that the operation of the order sought to be appealed against may be stayed pending disposal of the appeal.(2) the application for being allowed to appeal as a pauper and the stay application were listed for september 11, 1972. on that date notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents and it was directed that if the amount of compensation had not already been withdrawn then out of the compensation awarded rs. 23,160.20 shall not be with drawn pending further orders on the stay application unless security was furnised to the satisfaction of the additional district judge concerned for refund of the said amount in the event of the appeal being successful.(3) after service of notice when the applications were put up on april 17, 1973 it was directed by us that the case be listed for may 3, 1973 for hearing the counsel for the applicant as required by rule 1 (2) of order xliv of the code of civil procedure. on may 3, 1973 the applicant or his counsel did .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1980]122ITR977(Delhi)
1. both these are references to this court under section 66(1) of the indian i.t. act, 1922, at the instance of the assessed, the hindustan times ltd., new delhi. the references arise out of the i.t. assessments of the above company for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63. for the assessment year 1961-62, the following two questions have been referred for the decision of this court :' (1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in upholding the disallowance of rs. 14,260, being the value of car given to shri durgadas, on the ground that it was not an expenditure allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income-tax act, 1922? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of rs. 23,600 is capital expenditure and, as such, could not be allowed? ' 2. for the assessment year 1962-63, the question referred is :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of rs. 17,771 is capital expenditure ?'3. it may be mentioned here that the sum of rs. 17,771 referred to in the question for assessment year 1962-63 is of the same nature as the expenditure of rs. 23,600 which is referred to in the second question for the assessment year 1961-62. thus, one of the two questions is common for both the years. it will be convenient to dispose of both the references by a common judgment.4. taking up first, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004(75)DRJ342; 2005(1)SLJ320(Delhi)
pradeep nandrajog, j. 1. petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 16.3.2004 be quashed and a mandamus be issued to the respondent to allow the petitioner to serve up to the end of the fixed 5 year tenure service i.e. till 30.9.2006. 2. the first respondent is the delhi sikh gurudwara management committee, a statutory authority constituted under the delhi sikh gurudwara act 1971. the second respondent 'guru nanak institute of management' is an institute affiliated to 'guru gobind singh indraprastha university', a university established under the indraprastha vishwavidyalaya act, 1998. the university is respondent no.4. 3. by and under a contract of service executed on 1.10.1996 between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2, petitioner was appointed as the director of respondent no.2 for a period of 5 years, extendable by two more years. 4. two of the terms of contract of service are relevant and need to be noted. clause 2 and 3 of the contract stipulated as under:- ''2. the appointee shall be in service under the agreement for a period of five years with effect from 1st october, 1996 that is date of joining the post. provided that if the appointee on conclusion of the period of service mentioned above is below 65 years of age his services shall continue till he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. 3. the appointee shall be the principal academic and executive officer of the institute and serve the institute as the whole time director of the institute .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 110(2004)DLT294; 2004(73)DRJ469
b.n. chaturvedi, j.1. the petitioner, a constable in the central industrial security force(cisf), while posted at cisf unit, lpg(bp), tikri kalan, delhi, proceeded on 20 days sanctioned el from 25th of august, 2000 to 13th of september, 2000. he was to report for duty on 14th of september, 2000. he, however, failed to turn up and instead reported for duty on 15th of september, 2000.2. on 19th of september, 2000, the petitioner was deployed for duty from 2100 hours to 0500 hours at railway gate, cisf unit, lpg(bp), tikri kalan, delhi. he was, however, found absent from duty. on 20th of september, 2000, when he was deployed for second shift duty from 1300 hours to 2100 hours at watch tower no.1 of the cisf unit, lpg(bp), tikri kalan, delhi, he went missing from duty. this was followed by his absence from the unit without leave from 21st of september, 2000 to 24th of september, 2000. he reported in the unit on 25th of september, 2000. yet another incidence of his absence from duty came to the notice when he was detailed for unit lines duties on 8th of october, 2000 and 9th of october, 2000 but was found missing. he reported for duty on 10th of october, 2000.3. for his aforesaid acts of indiscipline and mis-conduct, a charge-memo dated 10/13.11.2000 was issued to the petitioner by respondent no.3. the summary of allegations of mis-conduct/indiscipline on which a departmental inquiry was proposed to be initiated read as under:-'charge -i no.882293532 const.chandrup was granted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2009(41)PTC492(Del)
v.k. jain, j.1. these appeals are directed against the common order dated 8.4.2009 passed in ia 2552/2004 in cs(os) no. 155/2004, ia 2551/2004 in cs(os) no. 156/2004, ia 2550/2004 in cs(os ) no. 157/2004, whereby the status quo order dated 7.1.97 passed in cs(os) no. 156/04 was vacated and the appellants were restrained from using the trademark 'kangaro' for stationery items, till the final disposal of these suits. the brief facts, giving rise to these appeals are as under.2. late shri janki dass jain, father of shri arihant jain, jaininder jain and shri vishwa jain, who was doing business in the name and style of m/s.kangaro industries (regd.) as its sole proprietor, adopted and started using trademark 'kangaro'. on 3.3.1963, late shri janki dass jain and his son arihant jain, vide partnership deed dated 3.4.1963, agreed to become partners in m/s.kangaro industries (regd.), with share of shri janki dass jain at 63 per cent and that of shri arihant jain at 37 per cent. on 1.4.1974, shri vishwa jain and mrs. kiran jain, (wife of shri jaininder jain), joined as partners in m/s.kangaro industries (regd.). shri vishwa jain having retired on 31.3.1978, late shri janki dass jain, shri arihant jain and mrs. kiran jain, continued as partners of the said firm, with effect from 1.4.1978. vide retirement deed dated 31.3.1995, mrs.kiran jain, retired from the partnership business and remaining two partners, namely, shri janki dass jain and shri arihant jain continued the partnership .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VAD(Delhi)705; 1999(51)DRJ206; [1999]240ITR324(Delhi)
orderd.k. jain, j.1. at the instance of the assessee, the income tax appellate tribunal delhi (for short 'the tribunal') has referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act,) for the opinion of this court':'1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company is entitled to export market development allowance in the sum of rs. 8,54,984/- or in any other sum, under section 35b of the income tax act, 1961? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company is entitled to deduction/relief in the sum of rs. 98,396/- or in any other sum, under section 80j of the income tax act, 1961? 2. the assessed is a private limited company, incorporated on 28th july, 1978 with the object of carrying on the business of deep sea fishing etc. the assessment year involved is 1980-81, for which the accounting period ended on 30th june, 1979. for the relevant assessment year the assessed claimed weighted deduction under section 35b(1)(b)(viii) in respect of the expenses incurred on payment of charter fees for the fishing trawlers hired by it from one m/s. southern marine services company limited of thailand. however, while completing assessment for the relevant assessment year the assessing officer held that these expenses being hire charges for the trawlers hired by the assessed for catching fish in indian waters pertained to the cost of the product which it was exporting and, thus, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1974(28)FLR169]; ILR1973Delhi859; 1974LabIC831
p.n. khanna, j. (1) in this writ petition khanna talkies, paharganj, new delhi, petitioner no. 1, a partnership firm, of which shambhu nath and vishwa nath, petitioners nos. 2 and 3 respectively are partners, have challenged the award dated december 28, 1963 of the industrial tribunal, delhi, whereby the orders of dismissal of bansi lal, respondent no. 3, and shiv kishan khanna, respondent no. 4, were set aside and it was directed that they will be paid compensation inlieu of reinstatement at the rate of 15 days wages for every years service. the industrial tribunal, delhi, and delhi administration have been made respondents nos. i and 5 respectively, while the cine employee's association (the trade union) was imp leaded as respondent no. 2. (2) the petitioners run a cinema called khanna talkies in paharganj, new delhi. both respondents nos. 3 and 4 were their employers. on june 16, 1961, a charge sheet was served on bansi lal, respondent 'no.3 and anothr employee alleging that on may 14,1961, they had abetted sohan lal, athird employee of the petitioners, in selling cinema tickets in the black market, which act was said to have brought the management into disrepute. both the workmen were alleged to have admitted the commission of the misconduct before the manager and before shambhu nath, petitioner no. 2, one of the partners. sohan lal, the third employee was convicted under section 9(b) of the u.p. entertainment and betting tax act by a magistrate and had been sentenced to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1981Delhi272
d.r. khanna, j.(1) this suit for partition and rendition of accounts brought by bishamber dayal, was initially against his two brothers, namely, ram pershad and chhotey lal. chhotey lal, however, died during the pendency of this suit some time in the year 1972. he was unmarried and has not left behind any issue. there is no dispure that the plaintiff and his brother ram pershad who is the other defendant, were his only heirs. his name, thereforee, was struck off from the plaint.(2) according to the plaintiff, he and ram pershad defendant came to delhi in late twenties from village subhana, district rohtak, and started joint business on road pavements of selling old books and periodicals. from the earnings saved there from, they obtained shop no. 5701, nai sarak, delhi on rent under .their names ram pershad bishamber dayal in about the year 1936, and continued the same business under the name 'vaish book depot'. still another shop bearing no. 892-893, nai sarak. delhi, was tatken by them on rent in about 1945, and in this they extended the same business under the name all india book house. the rent deed was in the no me of ram pershad defendant who being the elder brother, was acting as the karta of joint hindu family consisting of the plaintiff and himself.the accounts of the two business were kept joint at the premises of all india book house, and the sale-proceeds of vaish book depot too were entered there.(3) these defendants further obtained three godowns in charkhewalan, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1996)55TTJ(Del)294
ordera. kalyanasundharam, a. m. :the appeal has been filed by the assessed, a leasing company, aggrieved by the non-allowing of claim of depreciation of rs. 53,65,210 on commercial vehicles purchased by it. the grievance, as raised by the assessed, in the grounds of appeal in addition to the non-allowing of the depreciation, are that, the observation of the authorities that, the commercial vehicles were not put to use, that there was no valid certificate of registration, that the assessed had not adduced satisfactory evidence of the actual user of the commercial vehicles and finally in holding the lease agreement a non-genuine one.appearing for the assessed, sh. vaish, senior advocate, submitted that, the undisputed facts in the instant case are that :(a) the assessed had purchased 54 dcm toyota commercial vehicles;(b) paid the total consideration of rs. 1,07,70,420;(c) the payment was encased by m/s dcm toyota ltd.;(d) temporary certificate of registration in favor of the assessed for 54 vehicles was made and(e) the movable property namely commercial vehicles were delivered to the assessed.simultaneously, the assessed had entered into an agreement for leasing the 54 vehicles to m/s dcm toyota ltd., vide agreement dt. 29th march, 1988. m/s dcm toyota ltd., were required to pay the lease and hire charges to the assessed immediately on signing of the agreement and on that basis, they had paid the assessed a sum of rs. 2,98,430. this lease amount received from m/s dcm toyota ltd .....
Tag this Judgment!