Delhi Court January 1970 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.
Mehta Radha Kishen Vs. Raj Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi152
T.V.R. Tatacharji, J. (1) This Second Appeal has been filed against the order of Shri Pritam Singh Pattar. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 20th March, 1963 in Rent Control Appeal No. 68 of 1963 on his file. (2) The appellant in this Second Appeal is Mehta, Radha Krishna, According, to him, he became a tenant of the Custodian, in 1948 in respect of a portion of the suit primises, and the rent payable by him to the Custodian was Rs. 6.50 nP. The respondent herein. Shrimati Raj Rani, wife of Shri Mehta Puran Chand, Advocate, purchased the entire building in 1957, and the appellant therein became her tenant. Immediately after the purchase, the respondent herein filed an application on 1st September, 1957, in the Court of Shri B. R. Guiliani, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act No. 38 of 1952, for fixation of standard rent against all the tenants in the building including the appellant herein. It appears that the application was dismissed against all ...
Municipal Corporation, Delhi Vs. Laxmi NaraIn Tandon and anr. Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi244; 1970CriLJ1605; 6(1970)DLT450
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) The following three questions, which had arisen during the hearing of four appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 11, 36,63 and 64 of 1968) were referred to a Full Bench :- '(I)Whether for purposes of the Act there is no sale of food which is provided by a hotelier to a guest when a a consolidated charge is made for room and the other amenities, including food, and when no rebate is allowed for any meal which may not be taken by the guest (ii) Whether the expression 'store', as used in section 7 and section 16 of the Act. means storage simplicities or storing for sale? (iii) Whether a report signed by a Public Analyst after issue of notification regarding his appointment as such when the sample of food for analysis was received in the office of the Public Analyst and was caused to be analysed before the issue of the notification regarding his appointment as Public Analyst can be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceedings under the Act?'(2) Detailed facts...
Avtar Singh Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)351; 78(1999)DLT409; 1999(49)DRJ428
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The applicant (Avtar Singh Chadha) has moved an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of an arbitrator. This court issued a notice and a formal reply was filed on behalf of the respondentMCD. In the instant case, undisputed facts are that the work which was abandoned, was later on resumed by the applicant in June, 1997 and was finally concluded on 20.5.1998. Thereafter, the joint measurements were taken. To cut short any further delay, the learned counsel for the MCD has fairly submitted that within four weeks of submitting the final bill, the applicant's bill would be considered and scrutinized by the MCD and payment, if any, would also be made within four weeks. 2. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents, the application for the appointment of the arbitrator was disposed of. This court gave liberty to the applicant to revive the application in case the amount, if any, after adjustment is not pai...
Thomson Press (India) Ltd., Etc. Vs. the Secretary, Ministoy of Financ ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi341
Goswamy, J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal was directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the demand under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, for additional, duty, was dismissed(2) The petitioner is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in New Delhi. The petitioner is carrying on the business of Litho and Off-set Printing of various types of books and literature, etc. The petitioner for its off-set printing unit imported a scanning unit known as vario chromograph scanner unit from West Germany in pursuance of an import license issued by the Import Control Authority. On arrival the equipment was classified as printing machine component under item No. 72(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff Schedule which attracted Customs t duty on the basis of 40 per cent of the c.i.f. value and the equipment was duly cle...
Prakash Fabricators and Galvanizers P. Ltd. (Now Known as Jsl Refabric ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)415; 92(2001)DLT322; 2001(59)DRJ296; 2001(76)ECC469; 2001(130)ELT433(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Petitioner's appeal no. E/4253-4254/94-B filed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act) was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 03.05.2000. Application for restoration was filed, which was numbered as E/ROA/112/2000-B. The same was rejected on the ground that the reasons indicated, seeking restoration for the appeals, were not acceptable. Another application was filed inter alias taking the stand that even while dismissing appeal for non-prosecution, the same has to be decided on merits and mere dismissal for non-prosecution is neither permissible nor legal. Tribunal did not accept this stand as it was of the view that there is no provision in the Act permitting rectification of mistake in order passed in the miscellaneous application.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to law. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that when the appellant doe...
Motorola India (P) Ltd. Vs. Symphony Wireless Telecommunication Ente ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: [2003]117CompCas398(Delhi); 105(2003)DLT772; 2003(70)DRJ34; [2003]48SCL36(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner company praying for an order that the respondent company is indebted to the petitioner and that it is unable to pay its debt as it has become commercially insolvent.2. The petitioner is a subsidiary of Motorala Inc. The petitioner is a supplier of telecom equipments to various Government departments and Public Sector Undertakings etc. The respondent is a trader of telecom equipment and used to purchase telecom equipments from the petitioner and sell the same to its customers. The telecom equipments were shipped by the petitioner to the respondent on the basis of the purchase orders issued by the respondent for the same. During the course of its business with the respondent the petitioner supplied and delivered telecom equipments of certain quantities at agreed prices to the respondent and raised invoices for the telecom equipments supplied, which were duly accepted. The said equipments were used and utilised by the...
1. Mrs. Kailash Suneja (C.W. No. 5220 of 1993 and C.M. No. 1988 of 199 ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: [1998]231ITR318(Delhi); [1998]97TAXMAN144(Delhi)
K. RAMAMOORTHY J. - I have had the benefit of reading the draft judgment prepared by my learned brother. I am really elated at the way in which he could put the factual matrix and the law in very sweet and esoteric language. My learned brother had been unique in this respect. I have always been admiring his gift of the gab. I derived immense solace and comfort while working with him. He provoked my thinking and prompted me to proceed on the right track which enabled me to have a hang of the matters. I am spellbound, as it were, and I am in entire agreement with all that he has said. I now proceed to express my views in the Pan Indian fashion.All law is an experiment, as all life is an experiment as stated by Justice Holmes of the United States of America. The Government of India made an experiment by introducing Chapter XX-C in the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from 1986, but the Supreme Court in Gautam (C. B.) v. Union of India : [1993]199ITR530(SC) held that no doubt the Governme...
Deutsche Stahl-metallhande Isgesells. Haft Vs. Jamna Auto Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi156
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This petition purports to have been filed on behalf of three arbitrators who had been appointed as such under a contract dated July 8, 1966, entered into between the claimants and the respondents. The arbitrators have staled a special case under the provisions of section 13(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for the opinion of this Court on the following questions :- '1. Whether having regard to its Rules the Tribunal of Arbi (2) The respondents have raised a preliminary objectoion that the questions on which the arbitrators have sought the opinion of this Court are questions relating to procedure before the arbitrators even assuming that they are questions of law and, thereforee, the arbitrators cannot refer a special case for the opinion of this Court on these questions. (3) The objection raised on behalf of the respondents calls for interpretation of section 13(b) of the said Act. Section 13 enumerates the powers of an arbitrator and with regard to the making of a r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›