Delhi Court April 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Manaohar Lal Beli Ram Vs. Har Kishan Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi108
(1) On 1-10-1956 Shri Manohar Lal the appellant herein made an application to the court of the commercial Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi for permission to sue in forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 8498/- from the Har Kishan Lal, Bhalla. This application was granted on 15-6-1957 and the application itself was directed to be numbered and registered as suit. When the said application was pending the appellant herein filed an application under O. 39. Rr. 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for restraining the defendant in the suit from removing or alienating the goods lying in possession of the one Pearey Lal of Delhi. The said application was contested by the defendant. The Court in that application which had issued the ex parte order of injunction, set aside the injunction order on furnishing a security in the suit amount by the defendant. In pursuance of the said order, Shri Shivraj, the second respondent herein made an application to the court on 11-10-1956 to stand surety for the d...
National Hurricane Works Through Its Proprietor Rajab Ali Vs. Union of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi29
ORDER(1) This judgment will dispose of civil writ petitions Nos. 95-D of 1963, 143-D of 1963, 179-D of 1963, 560-D of 196, 561-D of 1963, 85-D of 1964 and 693-D of 1964. I am reciting the facts of civil writ No. 95-D 1963 as it is the common case of the parties that the toher writ petitions must abide the result of judgment rendered in this case.(2) The petitioner imported 'tinplate waste waste' under a license granted by the Iron and Steel Controller Government of India dated 23rd December, 1959. The description of the goods allowed to be imported under the said license was-'Tinplate waste 107 lbs. base weight and lighter up to 58 lbs. 18 inches x 24 inches and larger. The Custom authorities charged duty under item 63(10) of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff after rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the goods in question fell under item 69(1) of the said Tariff. The above mentioned entries read as under:- 63(10) 'Steel tinplates and tinned sheets, including tin tagg...
Guru Dutt Gupta Vs. Gauri Shanker and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT274
M.M. Ismail, J. (1) This petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, is filed against the order of the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dated 13-ll-?9, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. for setting aside an ex-parte decree passed against him. The respondent herein, filed suit No. 2687 of 1957 for recovery of Rs. 600.00 from the petitioner herein. The petitioner contested the suit. The evidence was recorded and on 29-5-59, the case was adjourned to 11-6-59 for the remainining evidence. On 11-6-59, the petitioner herein did nto appear and the Court passed an ex-parte decree. (2) From the records what transpires is that after the case was adjourned on 29-5-59, the petitioner herein, went to Ktoa to attend to his business and there he fell ill, with the result, he was nto able to return lo Delhi to attend to his case on 11-6-59. He obtained a medical certificate from the Medical Officer, Suraj Pur Disp...
Budh Ram Sharma Vs. Banwari Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT360
V.D. Misra, J.(1) This is tenant's second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rant Control Act of 1957 (hereinafter referr- ed to as the Act) against the order of the Kent Control Tribunal upholding the order of eviction of the tenant passed by the Additional Rent Controller. (2) The tenant had taken on rent premises No 4307 Gali Bhairon Wall for residential purposes. He built a house in IShaiba-bad colony, which is situated at a distance of about 10 miles from Delhi, the land lord filed an application for his eJectment on the ground amongest tohers, that the tenant has built and acquired vacant possession of a residence in Shaiba-bad co lony. The tenant adn)itied the consiruc- lion of the said house but coatended that his case did nto fall under clause (b) of the proviso io sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The Additional Rant Controller negatived the contention and ordered his ejectment. His appeal to the Kent Control Tribunal was also dismessed (3) The short question for de...
A. C. Khanna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1967
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 ...
Firm Ram Sewak Hari Ram Vs. SaIn Datta Mal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Delhi113
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, for revising the orders of the Courts below, dismissing the suit of the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent under Section 13 of that Act. In support of the relief claimed in the suit, two grounds were put forward bringing the same under the requirements of Sections 13(b) and 13(c) of that Act. The landlord-plaintiff is a firm said to be consisting of 10 partners, composed of three families. The allegation in the plaint was that the tenant had sublet the premises and thereforee, was liable to ejectment under Section 13(b). The second ground put forward was that the partners of the firm were under orders of eviction from the premises, which they were occupying and consequently, they required the premises in question for their occupation. buth the Courts found against the petitioner on buth the points and hence this revision under Section 35 of the Act. (2) The learned counsel for the petitio...
The Unique Mtoor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishmira Singh Si ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT500
Dua, J. (1) These three writ petitions :Civil Writs Nos. 569-D of 1959, 20-D and 21-D of 1960) raising, as they do, common question of law, are being dispossed of by one order As a matter of fact, the petitioner's learned counsel has addressed arguments only in C. W. No. 569-D of 1959, it being conceded that the toher two cases would stand or fall with it. (2) In C. W. No. 569-D of 1959, five applications under secton 21, Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) were made to the Authority under the Act for the recovery of earned wages by four applicants, two applications apparently being by the same person Shri Krishna Baldev (Respondent No. 4 in this Court) for two different periods. These applications were contested by the Unique Mtoor and General Insurance Company Ltd., the present petitioner in this Court ?.nd by Shri Ram Chandra H. Kubba, Ex-Divisional Manager of the said Company. Shri Ram Chandra H. Kubba, it may be pointed out, has beed pleaded as re...
Mustaff Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1967
Reported in: 3(1967)DLT438
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) On 29th September, 1958, Shri M. Ramaswamy, a dock passenger from Penang, arrived in India by S. S. Ra)ula. His person and baggage were searched by the Customs authorities and the inner buttom of the leather suit-case, a part of his personal luggage, was ripped open. 100 pieces of wrist watches embedded in the punched holes of card boards, were recovered from the false buttom of the suit-case. Before the seizure Shri M. Ramaswamy claimed that the suit-case was his personal property and he had purchased it about three months ago. After recovery of the watches, however, he stated that the suit-case containing the wrist watches had been handed over to him by one Mr. Ramiah at Penang with instructions to deliver it to the person whose address was written on a slip of paper given to him by the said Mr. Ramiah. The said slip contained the address of 'Mohammad Yaseen 244, Linghi Chetty Street. Madras-1.' In pursuance of this information the said premises were also searched....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›