Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi18
S.K. Kapur, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:-'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of Rs.3,489 assessable under the head 'toher sources' ?. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said interest income would be allocated as income from 'toher Sources' in the Partners' hands?.'(1a) Before I set out the facts of the case and proceed to answer the questions, it is necessary to deal with a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Revenue that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.(2) Under sub-section (8) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The jurisdiction with respect to the Union territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh was conferred on the High Court of Punjab. The relevant part of sub-section (8) of section 66 reads:'For the purposes of this section, 'the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 5(1969)DLT191
S.K. Kapur, J.(1) The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is a whole-sale dealer in food-grains, Kariana, cemet, vanaspsti, molasses and general merchandise at Maranda, District Kangra. The Punjab Rcorgaization Act, 1966 (Act No. 31 of 1966) came into force on November 1, 1966, and the Districts of Kangra, Kulu, Lahaul Spiti and Simla (hereafter referred to as the 'transferred territories'), which formed part of the State of Punjab, were merged in the Union torritory of Himachal Pradesh. The transferred territories, being part of Punjab, the provisions of the Punjab Sales-tax Act, 1948, were applicable therein and by virtue of section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966, continued to operate in the transferred territories until altered by to the areas comprised in the Union Territory of Himachal Pardesh before merger of the transferred territories, the East Punjab General Sales-tax Act, 1948 ( hereafter referred to as the Himachal Act) was applicable with certain modi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi246
ORDER1. This Writ Petition along with the connected Writ Petitions, 530/68 (Darshan Kumar Puri v. Delhi Administration) and 508/1968 (M. Prasad v. Delhi Administration) has been tiled by certain Ministerial employees of the Delhi Administration, against the constitution of the two separate Central Civil Services, to be known as the Subordinate Ministerial Service and the Subordinate Executive Service of the Delhi Administration by the Promulgation and enforcement of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Ministerial/Executive Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the 1967 Rules), from the 10th February, 1967. The facts are briefly as follows;--2. Prior to the promulgation of the 1967 Rules the Delhi Administration did nto have a unified subordinate service or services. The Administration was divided into several departments, each of which had ministerial as well as executive posts under it. The appointments to the subordinate executive posts were governed by two notifications. The noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi142; 5(1969)DLT82; ILR1969Delhi19
Dua, C.J. 1. This case has been placed before us pursuant to my order of reference dated 14-11-1967 which may be read as a part of the present order. The only question requiring authoritative determination is whether the amendment made in Rule 1 of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Punjab High Court is still operative in the Courts of the District Judges and Subordinate Judges of 1st Class in the Union Territory of Delhi The submission eloquently pressed by Shri Sehgal on behalf of the defendant-petitioner is that under section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act No. 26 of 1966, the Delhi High Court alone has the power to make rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure and all rules made by the Punjab High Court with respect to such practice and procedure in relation to the subordinate Courts at Delhi must cease to have effect as soon as the Punjab High Court ceased to have jurisdiction over such subordinate Courts. 2. In support of his submission. Shri Sehgal has c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi132
1. The petitioner's challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to an order dated 31st October, 1968 whereby his services were terminated with effect from the date of receipt of the communication bearing the same date addressed to him by the Under Secretary Protocol and Publicity, Government of Haryana, on behalf of the Chief Secretary to the said Gvoernment. The communication further stated that one month's salary in lieu of the period of notice was being allowed to the petitioner.2. The grounds on which the validity of the above orderis challengedby the petitioner are (1) that he being a permanent Government servant, the order terminating his services amounts to dismissal and thereforee contravenes the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution, (2) that even if he is held to be a temporary Government servant his appointment being conterminous with the post held by him, the termination of his service while the post is still in existence would contravene Art...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi178
ORDER1. The petitioner, a resident of Bhiwani, Hissar District in the State of Haryana, has sought the following reliefs:1. That Section 4 and sub-section (b) (ii) of Section 7 and Sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act 1966 be declared as ultra virus and void. 2. That a suitable writ, order or direction may be issued to implement the Shah Commission Report in toto and that Chandigarh Capital Project as also Lalroo, Darabassi, Pathankot and areas of Gazilka and Malaut be declared as included in the territories of the Haryana State; and 3. That a suitable writ be issued ousting the authority of the Central Government from the conrol and management of the Bhakra Nangal complex and to vest the same in the State of Haryana in order that people of Haryana may have full share in the water of Satluj, Beas and Ravi rivers. 2. The Union of India and the State of Punjab, but not the State of Haryana, have filed returns constesting this petition.3. The two questions argued befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi123
Pritam Singh Safeer, J1. A very significant question arises on determination whereof would rest the ultimate fate of this Letters Patent appeal. The question is whether any equity calling for adequate relief would arise in favor of a citizen on the basis of representation made on behalf of the State (in this case the respondents to the appeal) which may not be based upon any legal sanction behind it.2. The Letters Patent appeal has been substantially urged on the basis of the observations made by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Air 1968 Sc 718, union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies. The appellants' counsel was allowed to argue as if he was once again urging the acceptance of his civil writ petition No. 131 of 1967. The writ petition was filed by M/s. Narinder Chand Hem Raj and Company, English Wine Contractor, the Mail, Simla through its partner named Shri Hem Raj. The respondents were the Lieutenant Governor, Administrator, of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 6(1970)DLT342
Om Parkash, J.(1) The dispute, in this appeal, against an appellate Judgment of the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur Division at Dharamsala, relates to the estate of Roop Singh. Roop Singh had died in 1909 and was succeeded to by his mother, Smt. Koklu.Smt. Koklu died on 5-31948. The mutation of the estate inherited by Smt. Koklu from Roop Singh was sanctioned in favor of Smt. Janki and Smt. Daropati, sisters of Roop Singh, and Man Singh son of Smt. Janki. The collaterals of Roop Singb had filed a suit for possession of the estate of Roop Singh on the ground that they were preferential heirs as against sisters of Roop Singh The suit was ultimately dismissed by the High Court. The copy of the judgment of the High Court is Ex. P. 12. It was held that sisters of Roop Singh were preferential heirs as against collaterals.(2) The plaintiff in the present suit, a daughter of Smt. Sahni, a third sister or Roop Singh, had filed a suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, claming one-t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi45a
Khanna, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to the Full bench in pursuance of an order made by Om Parkash and Anmsari, JJ.:-'(1) Whether the employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board are persons serving in connection with the affair of the Punjab State who could be allocated to the successor States under Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. (2) Whether the employees of the said Board constituted its assets or liabilities which were liable to apportioned between the successor States under sub-sections (3) and (4) of S. 67 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act.' 2. The questions have arisen in a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Mohd. Yaqub petitioner on January 3, 1969. The six respondents in the petition are (1) Union of India, (2) Himachal Pradesh Administration, (3) Secretary, Department of Multipurpose Projects and Power, Government of Himachal Pradesh (4) D. C. Tandon, (5) Ramjilal Kaistha and (6) Duni Chand Bhandari. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT161
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) The reference made by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, under section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 disclosed that the Punjab State was the party to the said reference. It was for that reason that I had passed the order dated the 22nd October, 1970. (2) Mr, D. P. Sud has referred me to the provisions of Section 92 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and then to clauses (i), (m) and (n)of Section 2 thereof. Clause (m) is:- '(M)'Successor State',in relation to the existing State of Punjab, means the State of Punjab or Haryana, and includes also the Union in relation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the transferred territory.'(3) The transferred territory is defined in clause (n) of Section 2 of the aforementioned Act. Clause (m) means that in respect of the transferred territory the Union i. e Union of India will be the successor State, Himachal iradesh as such will not be the successor State. The transferred territory...
Tag this Judgment!