Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(105)DRJ422
Rajiv Shakdher, J.CM No. 1723/19991. This is an application effectively under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the Appellant for adducing additional evidence. The additional evidence which the Appellant seeks to produce are seven bills issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The bills span over a period commencing from 3.11.1988 to 9.9.1990. These bills are for various services rendered by the hospital to the Appellant herein; including two bills for laboratory and pathological facilities provided to the Appellant.2. It is the case of the Appellant that these bills pertain to the treatment rendered to the Appellant during the period of his hospitalization and the expenses incurred by him.3. The Appellant in the application has averred that due to the accident suffered by him he underwent physical and mental trauma which resulted in his inability to run his factory. The closure of the factory resulted in the bills in issue being misplaced. He further avers that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2007 whereby the suit of the plaintiff (the appellant herein) for recovery of Rs. 6,96,062/- along with interest was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.2. The facts of the case, as alleged in the plaint, are as follows:The plaintiff had placed orders on the defendant No. 1 for the purchase of 12,000 sq.ft. of Cow Softy Finished Leather. The quantity of goods was subsequently increased to 24,000 sq.ft. of the said leather. It was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff will obtain a Letter of Credit in favour of the defendant No. 1 (the respondent No. 1 herein) for the payment of the goods to be supplied by the defendant No. 1. The goods were to be supplied by the defendant No. 1 as per the specifications of the plaintiff and the payment was to be obtained by the defendant No. 1 by invoking the said Letter of Credit, the invocation being commensurate to the value of the goods supplied by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi88; 1967CriLJ1300
ORDER(1) The respondent Shri Sinha Govindji is the proprietor of Messrs Sinha Govindji carrying on business at Bellary in Mysore State. The said firm had an office in Bombay. On 18th January, 1960, the respondent was granted a license for import of 31/2 tons of Cellulose Nitrate sheets, rods, etc. Of the value of about Rs.75,000/- the license was 'actual User's license', so that the goods could be consumed by the respondent himself, and he was nto entitled to sell the same. He imported 44 cases of the material from London and the delivery thereof was taken in July, 1961. In December, 1961, the respondent addressed a letter to one Shri Bijayasankar Bhargava of Sankar Brtohers, Delhi offering to sell the material at Rs. 7 per pound. This letter was sent by the respondent from Bombay to the purchaser in Delhi. Shri Bhargava accepted the offer by a letter which he sent from Delhi to the respondent at Bombay. According to the complaint, Shri Bhargava instructed the respondent to send the go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi1
Dua, AG. C.J. (1). This petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been placed before us in pursuance of the referring order dated 4-11-1966 made by my learned brtoher S.K. Paur, J. Considering the matter to be important and, thereforee deserving of consideration by a larger Bench.(2) The petitioner claiming to be a citizen of India and regular Travel Agent and Adviser of Messrs. Lufthansa Airlines and toher International Wirelines working in Delhi for the last more than three years, made an application to the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, respondent No. 1 on 5-7-1966 along with the requisite guarantee bond and original character certificate signed by the Competent Authority. This application had been made by the petitioner in anticipation of an invitation of Messrs. Lufthansa a German Airlines who had decided to introduce a flight between Hamburg and Oslo and are to operate an inaugural flight on 12-11-1966. The petitioner was to leave on 11-11-1966. By means of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1967Delhi151; 1967CriLJ1630; 3(1967)DLT383
ORDER1. This case has been reported by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, with the recommendation that the order of the trial Magistrate dismissing the complaint be quashed and the main question which arises determination is whether an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Public Gambling Act 1955 (Act No. 9 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a cognizable offence. (2) The brief facts of the case are that a police report entitled State through S.I. Har Kesh of Special Staff, Old Police Lines, Delhi, against Parkash Chand and nine tohers, was forwarded to the trial Court by the Prosecuting Inspectors on 27th January, 1966. According to the allegations made in the report S.I. Har Kesh, on receipt of trustworthy information that the house of Parkash Chand (respondent was being used as a common gambling house, obtained a warrant from the Superintendent of Police under section 5 of the Act entitling him to search the same and arrest the persons found there. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1968Delhi219
(1) This Letters Patent appeal is filed by the Union of India and toher against the judgment of a learned Single Judge (Mehar Singh, J.) of the High Court of Punjab, dated 21st August, 1964, directing that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the second appellant, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for Delhi State, to state a case under sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Indian Stamp act, in writ petition C. W. No. 189-D of 1964 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the respondent herein.(2) The respondent herein, S. Sarup Singh, filed the aforesaid writ petition C. W. No. 189-D of 1964 in the High Court of Punjab in the following circumstances:(3) The facts stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge are nto disputed before us. The respondent herein and his sons constituted a joint Hindu family. His wife purchased some time in February 1952, a building site in the Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi, for about Rs. 41,000. The respondent herein contributed Rs. 23,30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1968]68ITR770(Delhi)
This is reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as &quto;the act&quto;). The question of law, referred for the opinion of this court, is :&quto;Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the profits and gains in respect of the sales made to the Government of India, were received by the assessed in the taxable territories ?&quto;This reference was made on December 10, 1952, and it was numbered as Civil Reference Case No. 3 of 1953, in the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla. The said reference came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of G. D. Khosla and Harnam Singh JJ. on the March 24, 1955. After hearing the counsel for the parties, their Lordships opined that it would be necessary to call for a supplementary statement under section 66(4) of the Act, as the Tribunal had nto given any finding as to whether the cheques, with which we are concerned in this case, were sent to the assessed by post ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 3(1967)DLT291
(1) These are five Civil Revisions Nos. 122-D, 131-D, 132-D, 133-D and 134-D all of 1966 against the common order dated 31st December, 1965, of Shri R. K. Synghal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, in five applications under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, which were registered as suit Nos. 249 to 253 of 1965. (2) The facts out of which these revisions arise are that the petitioner on 7th May, 1965, filed an application under Section 20 of the said Act in the Court of the Munsif, Nainital, and obtained a preliminary injunction against the respondents. Thereupon, respondents on 24th May, 1965, filed the above said application under Section 20 of the said Act in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, which were ultimately transferred for trial by Shri R. K. Synghal, Sub Judge 1st Class. The petitioner then filed applications under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of the proceedings in the Delhi Court in view of the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1968]67ITR393(Delhi)
K. S. HEGDE C.J. - As a preliminary objection, to the effect that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, has been taken on behalf of the respondents and as we agree with the same, it is sufficient if we set out the facts material for the purpose of deciding that question. But before doing so, we shall qutoe the reliefs prayed for in this petition. They read thus :&quto;The petitioner, thereforee, most respectfully prays :That this hon'ble Court be pleased :(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any toher appropriate writ, direction, or order under article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the said search and seizure and ordering and directing the respondents to forthwith return to the petitioner the remaining files, documents and papers seized and carried away by them during the said search and seizure and the sum of Rs. 1,17,000 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum from the 9th July, 1966, till payment;(b) to issue ...
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!