Delhi Court October 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.
Union of India and ors. Vs. N.K. (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT406
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This case is notable, firstly, because the present value of the goods involved runs into crores of rupees and, secondly, because of the interesting questions of law raised. (2) The facts are undisputed. In March 1968 the appellants (hereinafter called the 'Government') issued a global tender for the sale of about eighty thousand tonnes of surplus released serviceable and scrap rails mainly for export. On May 21, 1968, the respondents (hereinlifter called the 'Company') submitted an offer in terms of the tendciconditions for the purchase of the re-layable and scrap rails. After obtaining some clarifications from the Company, the Government ultimately purported to accept the offer by the following letter :- 'GOVERNMENTOF India Ministry Of Railways (RAILWAY BOARD) New Delhi-1. dated 15th July 1968 No. 68/RS(G),'709. M/s. N. K. Private Limited, 171-C, defense Colony, New Delhi. Dear Sirs, SUB: Tender No. 1 of 1968 for Export sale of used re rollable and re-layable st...
The Punjab Registered (iron and Steel) Stockholders Association Ltd. V ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi809
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This Regular First appealis directed against the judgment and decree of a subordinate Judge 1st Class whereby the plaintiff-appellant's suitfor recovery of Rs. 22,93,387/10.00 and future interestat the rate of 6 per cent per annum was dismissed. Therespondent is Union of India which was defendantin the suit.(2) The appellant was appointed by the Iron and SteelController as Controller Stock-holder of iron andsteel of various categories, on a fixed remunerationat Lahore. The appointment was made subject to theteims and conditions which were set out in a memorandum enclosed with the letter dated 19th/ 21/05/1945and was to commence from an earlier date viz., 14/09/1941. During the period 28-11-1946 to 26-3-1947,Government of India made a slight change in thearrangement whereby the Provincial Governments wereauthorised to issue permits for all stocks other than tinplates against which the plaintiff was to make supplies.This arrangement did not work and was cancelled a...
Abdul Aziz Vs. Mohd. Yakub
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT260
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The respondent Mohd. Yakub, is the owner of a house, bearing Municipal No. 958, situated injMohalla Kishan Gan). Delhi. Abdul Aziz, the appellant, is the tenant in the said house. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for the appellant's eviction under proviso (b) to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground that the latter has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of a part of the demised premises in favor of other persons without his consent. The Additional Controller dismissed the petition as he did not find the above allegations substantiated. The Rent Control Tribunal disagreed with the Additional Controller and held that Abdul Aziz and Habib Ahmed had been inducted by the appellants-tenant as sub-tenants in portions of the premises in dispute and that the possession of the said portions bad been parted with in their favor. He, thereforee, ordered the appellant's eviction, Abdu) Aziz, the tenant has come up in second appeal ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. Vs. Laxmi NaraIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1970
Reported in: 1973CriLJ690; 8(1972)DLT1; ILR1970Delhi771
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) This judgment will dispose ofCriminal Appeal No. 8 of 1968, Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1968, Criminal Revisions Nos. 7 of 1967, 287 of 1967,66 of 1968, 72 of 1968, 73 of 1968, 78 of 1968, 5 of 1970,18 of 1970, 426 of 1968 and 544 of 1969.The common questions that arise for determinationin all these cases are:- (I)Whether a joint trial of the vendor, thedistributor and the manufacturer for offencesunder the Prevention of Food AdulterationAct, 1954 is illegal? And (II)What is the scope of section 20A of the saidAct? (2) The facts of each of the cases may be briefly stated:In Criminal Appeals Nos. 8 and 9 of 1968, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint againsttwo persons, namely, (1) Laxmi Narain, Partner of M/sLaxmi Sweets, shop No. E-149-150, Kamla Nagar, Delhiand (2) M/s. Bhagwan Dass Jagdish Chander, GheeMerchants and Commission Agents, Khari Baoli, Delhi,under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as t...
Mohd. Jan Vs. Haji Abdul Sattar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi132
1. Haji Abdul Sattar, respondent No. 1, and his wife Zohra Bi, respondent No. 2, obtained three separate money decrees against Mohd. Jan, the appellant, Mehtabuddin, respondent No. 3, and M/s. Jan Tin Industries, respondent No. 4 for Rs.9,000/- with costs Rupees 3,250/- with costs and Rs. 1,300/- with costs respectively. The decree-holders took out execution of their first decree for Rs. 9,000/- and got attached a house belonging to the judgment-debtor, Mohd. Jan, the present appellant. Objections by his wife, under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were dismissed. A declaratory suit by her claming the property as hers met the same fate. In appeal, the trial court's judgment was modified party to the extent that she was held entitled to a charge on the property to the extent of Rs.2,000/-The house was put to auction; but the appellant, on depositing the entire decretal amount in court, prayed for its release from attachment. At this stage, Haji Abdul Sattair, respondent...
Jagdev Singh Mumick Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR500(Delhi)
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) Following question has been referred to this Court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :- 'WHETHERthe sum of Rs. 83,624.00 was rightly assessed under section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?'(2) The case relates to assessment year 1947-48, the previous year for which ended on March 1, 1947. The assessed is an individual who was carrying on business under the name and style of Mumick Opticians at Connaught Place, New Delhi. A private limited company called 'Mumick Limited' (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was incorporated with the assessed as its Managing Director to take over the said business. An agreement to that effect was entered into between the said Company and the assessed on September 16, 1946- The nominal capital of the Company was Rs. 5 lakhs divided into 5000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100.00 each. Clauses I and 2 of the agreement read as under :- '1.The Vendor sells and the Company purch...
Dev Lata Vs. Chond
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT207
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This appeal was filed against a decision recorded by the District Judge, Mahasu, on the 5th December 1967.(2) In the course of the appeal Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 148 of 1969 was filed for recording a compromise as between the appellant and the legal representatives of Chitaku deceased. The Civil miscellaneous petition was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court. By an order dated 20th August, 1970, the said petition was dismissed and it was directed that the present appeal be decider on merits. It may also be noticed that during the pendency of this appeal C. M. P. No. 224 of 1969 was filed by one Parsa with the prayer that he being in possession of the land in dispute be made a party. That petition was dismissed on the 28th May 1970. There is a finding recorded by the learned District Judge that Chitaku was the tenant in cultivatory possession and was thus entitled to the transfer of the rights within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the...
Boota Kam Vs. Balmukand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT299
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) This appeal is directed agaiiist the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated July 14, 1969, affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller directing eviction of appellant Boota Ram.(2) Balmakand, the respoadent in this appeal purchased evacuee property No, 178/1798, situated at Hardhian Singh Road, ward No, Xvi Krol Bagh, New Delhi by means of a sale-certificate granted in his favor by the Rehabilitation Deptt. on July 29, 1959 declaring him to be an owner with effect from November 4, 1957 On January 23, 1965, he filed an application under section 14(2)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act claiming eviction of the tenant appellant from t3.e premises in his occupation which formed a part of the above property on the ground that the tenant had built a residence in Kirti Nagar on plot No. 81, Block 'F' and that the tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties even though after the purchase of the property by him (Balmukand) the resp...
Pandit Chander SaIn Vs. Rani Vidya Wati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT329
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This appeal raises the question whether in a Civil Suit a Civil Court can determine whether a party before it is a displaced person and whether he can take advantage of the provisions of section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the (Act') which came into force in Delhi as from December 10, 1951. The Commercial SubJudge, Delhi, who decided the suit filed by the appellant held that the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendant-respondents was a displaced person and they could take advantage of the provisions of the said section. (2) The appellant had advanced a loan of Rs. 15,000.00 to Raja Dhyan Singh of Sheikhupura at Lahore against a Promissory Note dated May 23, 1946 carrying interest at Re. 1.00 percent per month executed by him. The respondents are the legal representatives of the executant who died at Delhi on February 1, 1957. During his lifetime, he had paid, from time to tmie, an aggregate amount of Rs 3,000....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagat Cinema
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi799; [1971]81ITR488(Delhi)
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) The following question hasbeen referred to this Court under section 256(1) of theIncome tax Act, 1961. 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 9,418.00is a permissible deduction?'(2) The statement of the case relates to the assessmentyear 1962-63. The relevant previous year ended on 31/12/1961. Jagat Cinema (Bareilly), the assessed,is a partnership firm. The assessed took Cinema Hall,known as Jagat Cinema, with shops and out housessituated in Bareilly on lease under a lease deed dated 20/12/1957. The period of the lease began from 1/01/1957 and terminated on 31/12/1961. Clauses (6), (10) and (11) of the lease deed readas under:- '(6)That on the termination of the lease, thelessee will be entitled to remove his TalkieEquipment with its wiring and all fittings andfurnitures and deliver possession to the Lesserwithout any damage to the building whatsoever. (10)That the Lessee will keep the fixture,decoration etc., in good con...