Delhi Court December 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.
Phool Singh Vs. Madan Lal Bajaj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi535
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of a shop forming part of property No. 3405, Gali Hakim, Baqa, Hauz Qazi, Delhi. The suit property was an evacuee property, which was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent after it had been acquired by the Government. The appellant was the defendant in the said suit and he claims that he is in authorised possession of the shop. The property was sold by auction and at that time no reference to the occupants of the property was made in the sale-deed dated 30th January, 1965. Both the courts below have found that Phool Singh, the present appellant, was a trespasser and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.(2) It is common ground that one Prem Behari was a tenant in the shop under the Custodian and was paying Rs. 5.00 per month as its rent. Phool Singh, the appellant, claimed that he was the heir and legal representative of Prem Behari and on his death he became a tenant under the Custodian ...
Oberoi Clarks Vs. Excise Taxation Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT172
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner, Oberoi Clarks Hotel, Simla, is aggrieved by the imposition of a fee of Rs. 10.000.00 in addition to the assessed fee on the liquor licenses L. 3 L 4 and L. 5 held by them for the period 1st April, 1968 by virtue of an amendment made by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of the Financial Commissioner under section 9 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (No. I of 1914) and in exercise of the powers conferred by section 59 of the said Act the amendment taking retrospective effect from 1st April, 1968. (2) The short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Excise and taxation Commissioner could impose the said extra levy during the currency of the financial year 1st April, 1968 to 31st March, 1969 by an amendment dated 30th October, 1968 but have retrospective effect from 1st April, 1968. (3) It was stated by Shri C. L Kapila, leaned counsel for the respondents, that the Financial Commissioner h...
Roshan Lal Devi Dass and ors. Vs. Man Mohan Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi201
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 29 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the `Act') and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge dated 18th July, 1963 by which he set aside the judgment of the trial-court and remanded the case to the trial-court.2. The petitioners are the landlords of the building in dispute. A suit for ejectment was brought by them on the allegation that the respondent was a tenant under them on a monthly rental and that he was liable to be evicted on the ground that he had failed to pay the rent. It was also claimed that the premises were required bona fide for the personal occupation by the landlord. The respondent controverter the allegations. He denied that he was the tenant under the appellant and contended that he was not liable to be evicted on any of the grounds. Along with the written statement, Rs.1400/- on account of arrears of rent and costs were deposited in court by...
B.N. Ahuja Vs. G.S. Pathak and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi438
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) Dr. B. N. Ahuja by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash the decision of the scrutiny officer whereby the nomination paper for the election of Shri G. S. Pathak, Vice-President of India, respondent No. 1, to the office of the Chancellor of the University of Delhi was held to be valid. Prayer has also been made in the petition for declaring Dr. Govind Rai Chaudhry, the only other contestant to the office, as having been duly elected to the said office. The respondents named in the petition, besides Shri Pathak, are the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Delhi.(2) Delhi University was established under the provisions of the Delhi University Act, 1922 (Act No. Viii of 1922). Section 8 of that Act specifies the persons who shall be officers of the University. The Chancellor tops the list of those officers. Section 9 of the Act, as it originally stood, provided that the C...
K.R. Bhagat Vs. Babu Ram Lamba
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT141
M.R. Ansari, J. 1. The petitioner herein, Shri K. R. Bhagat filed a complaint before the Municipal Magistrate, Delhi, against the respond at herein under Section 473 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. 1957 thereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on 22nd March, 196) and issued summons for the appearance of the respondent. The respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate and thereafter the petitioner and the respondent Were required to file affidavits in support of their respective cases instead of adducing oral evidence of witnesses. At this stage the learned Magistrate was transferred and was succeeded by another Magistrate. The latter was of the view that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not enquired into in the manner provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, in as much as the procedure prescribed under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code was not followed. He thereforee passed an order dated 1st Ap...
Madan Lal Vs. Hema Wati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi519
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The only point urged in this appeal is, whether the needs of the members of the family of the respondent landlady, who are not dependent on her, can be taken into consideration, when she claims eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground that the premises let for residential purposes, are required bona fide by her for occupation as a residence for herself. (2) The respondent-landlady had filed the petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground, inter alia, that the premises were required bona fide by her for occupation as a residence for herself and the members of her family dependent on her and that she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. She also stated in her petition that her 0 family consisted of herself, her husband, two sons, four daughters and one sister-in-law's son. The eldest son was aged 22 years. The other children were getting education in Schools. The accommoda...
Union of India Vs. R.P. Dhir and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi433
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by the Union of India and Director of Education, Delhi Administration is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge reversing on second appeal the decisions of the Court below and remanding the suit brought by R, P. Dhir respondent for being decided on merits in accordance with law.(2) The respondent an employee of the Education Directorate, was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent in July, 1953. Notice' of termination of his services was served upon the resopndent in June, 1954, and his services were terminated with effect from July, 12, 1954. The respondent thereupon brought a suit against the appellants lor a declaration that the order of his removal from service was illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and inoperative, and that he was still in the employment of the defendants.(3) The appellants contested the suit. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the appellants that in view of ...
Munshi Lal and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1970
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi113
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The petitioners (in this case) under thename and style of Friends Corporation purchased a plot of land measuring 14050 square yards in Khasra No. 408 with a bungalow builtthereon collectively known as premises No. 21 Rajpur Road, Delhi.The petitioners state that they had acquired this land to make independent residential houses for themselves, A lay out plan was submitted by the petitioners to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi forpermission to divide the property into 14 plots so as to provide eachof the petitioners with independent space for constructing residentialcottages for themselves. This lay out plan is stated to have been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 6-6-1961. The petilioners thereon proposed to submit building plans for their individual properties but before they could do so a notification dated 26-5-1960was published in the Delhi Gazette under section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire the land. There is soni...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›