Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: supreme court of india Year: 1973 Page 8 of about 75 results (0.223 seconds)

May 22 1973 (SC)

Dr. Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. Raghbir Singh Anokh Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-22-1973

Reported in : AIR1973SC2254; (1973)2SCC597

s.n. dwivedi, j.1. the first appellant, dr. vijay kumar, is the father of the second and third appellants, ajay kumar and ashok kumar. dr. vijay kumar was the tenant of the shop no. 2855, guru nanak building, kashmiri gate, delhi. the respondent is the owner of the shop. on january 12, 1965 he applied for ejectment of the appellants from the shop. the application was made to the rent controller under proviso (b) to sub-section (i) of section 14 of the delhi rent control act, 1958. the application alleged that the first appellant has sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with a part of the shop to the other appellants. the application was contested by the appellants. by his order, dated december 6, 1966, the rent controller allowed the application and directed ejectment of the appellants. their first appeal against his order was dismissed by the rent control tribunal on april 25, 1968. their second appeal was dismissed by the high court of delhi on october 29, 1971. they have preferred the present appeal by special leave.2. the rent controller has found that the appellants have partitioned the shop in two portions. the two portions are demarcated by a wooden partition wall. in one portion there is the clinic of the first appellant. in the other portion the other appellants are carrying on the business of sale and purchase of motor cars. the wooden partition wall has divided the single door of the shop in two parts, so that there are now two doors, one in the portion in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 1973 (SC)

Jai NaraIn Vs. the State of U.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-15-1973

Reported in : AIR1974SC226; 1974CriLJ312; (1974)3SCC598

s.n. dwivedi, j.1. the appellant appeals from the judgment of the allahabad high court affirming the judgment of the special judge, saharanpur. the special judge convicted him under section 161 i.p.c. read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act and sentenced mm to one year's rigorous imprisonment as well as a fine of rs. 100/-2. he was employed as a lekhpal in the consolidation department in 1964 consolidation operations were initiated in village nanka in the district of saharanpur. a chak was allotted by the consolidation officer to one kala singh. kala singh complained to the 'consolidation authorities that his chak was less than the allotted area. one dm prakash kaushal, kanungo, and the appellant measured its area. it appears that the area of the chak was found to be more than the allotted area.3. the prosecution case was that the appellant demanded rs. 20/- from kala singh for concealing from the consolidation authorities the excess area in his chak. kala singh went to the deputy superintendent of police and made a complaint to 'him against the appellant. a trap was laid and the appellant accepted initialled currency notes of rs. 20/-. the deputy superintendent of police recovered the said notes from the pocket of the appellant.4. the appellant pleaded not guilty. he, however, admitted recovery of the currency notes of rs. 20/- from his pocket. in this regard his explanation was that some time ago he had paid rs. 20/- to kala singh to purchase ghee for him .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1973 (SC)

Abdul Sathar Haji Moosa Sait Dharmastapanam Vs. Commissioner of Agricu ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-07-1973

Reported in : AIR1974SC1795; [1973]91ITR5(SC); (1974)3SCC257

k.s. hegde, j.1. these are appeals by certificate. the only question for consideration in these appeals is whether a part of the trust crated by one abdul sathar haji moosa by his will dated 25th day of kanni, 1099 m. e. is a public charitable trust within the meaning of section 4(b) of kerala agricultural income-tax act, 1950. the high court came to the conclusion that half of the income of the properties mentioned in schedule b to the will as well as l/4th of the income of that property which is reserved for augmentation of the corpus did not constitute a public charitable trust. it is only this part of the high court's judgment that is under appeal. 2. according to the appellant the entire trust is a public charitable trust but the revenue rejected that contention. the high court came to the conclusion that the income of the property bequeathed under the will had been divided into four parts. l/4th was exclusively reserved for public charitable purpose; 2/4ths was reserved for giving assistance to the poor relations of the testator and the remaining l/4th was earmarked for the purpose of augmenting the corpus. the high court agreed with the assessee that the first l/4th should be considered as charitable trust, but it rejected the contention of the assessee in other respects. we are now to consider whether the high court was justified in coming to that conclusion. 3. paragraph 9 of the will provides for the maintenance and clothing of the relations of the testator. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1973 (SC)

C.i.T., Andhra Pradesh Vs. Vadde Pulliah and Co.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-08-1973

Reported in : AIR1973SC2434; [1973]89ITR240(SC); (1973)4SCC121; [1973]3SCR655

k.s. hegde, j.1.these are appeals by special leave. they arise from a common judgment of the andhra pradesh high court in a reference under section 66 (i) of the indian income tax act, 1922, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. the reference in question relates to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57. the question of law referred by the tribunal is 'whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the assessment made on the firms, for each of the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57, are valid in law ?'2. now we shall set out the material facts as could be gathered from the case stated by the tribunal. up to and including the assessment year 1953-54 business with which we are concerned in this case, was carried on by vadde pallaiah. he was assessed as an 'individual'. on march 20-3-1953 he entered into a partnership consisting of himself and three others. that partnership was known as 'm/s. vadde pulliah and co.' in that partnership pulliah had 8 as. share and out of the remaining three partners two had 3 as. share each and one had 2 as. share. for the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 19561-57, this firm filed returns of income as a firm. it also applied for registration under section 26a. the income-tax officer rejected that application holding that there was no genuine firm. he came to the conclusion that the business was exclusive that of pulliah. he accordingly assessed pulliah as an 'individual' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1973 (SC)

Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Ii Vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-04-1973

Reported in : AIR1973SC2486; [1973]89ITR266(SC); (1974)3SCC196; [1973]3SCR902

k.s. hegde, j.1. these are connected appeals by certificate. they relate to respondent's assessment for the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57. the previous financial years are the relevant accounting years.2. in all these appeals, as directed by the high court of calcutta under section 66(2) of the indian income tax act, 1922, certain questions were submitted by the tribunal. in the first case i.e. civil appeal no. 242 of 1970 only one question was submitted and in the other two cases i.e., civil appeals nos. 243 and 244 of 1970, two questions were submitted. the question submitted in the first case is as follows :whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case the sum of rs. 1,11,779 said to have been foregone by the assessee as managing agency commission was allowable as a revenue expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 for the assessment year 1954-553. similar questions were called for the remaining two assessment years as well. but, in addition, one more question, namely :whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of rs. 30,000 said to have been foregone by the assessee as office allowance receivable from gwalior rayon and silk . was allowable as a revenue expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income tax act, 1922 for the assessment years, 1955-56 and 1956-57, was called for.4. at the hearing, the high court came to the conclusion that it is not necessary to answer the common question .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //