Delhi Court March 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.
N.S. Maini Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi879
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This writ petition has been filed by Shri N. S. Maini, officiating Income-tax Officer Class Ii, praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing an order (Annexure 'B'), dated 11th July, 1969, whereby he B was reverted as Inspector, Income-tax, on the ground that he was found unsuitable to hold the post of Income-tax Officer Class II. (2) The respondents in the writ petition are (1) Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Range I, New Delhi; (2) The Central Board of Direct Taxes, through its Secretary; (3) Shri S. N. Nautial, C Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 2; and (4) Shri R. N. Limaye, Director of Inspection. (3) The petitioner entered the Income-tax Department on 3rd September, 1942. He was confirmed as Inspector of Income-tax in 1956. He passed the Departmental Examination held in the year 1958 and, on selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee, was promoted along with three others, as Income-tax Officer C...
Seth R. Dalmia Vs. the Union of India and ors. Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi85
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of six writ petitions bearing Nos. 663-D of 1965 to 668-D of 1965(2) All these petitions have been filed by Shri R. Dalmia challenging the validity and legality of notices served on him under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 apart from challenging the validity, legality and Constitutionality of Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Petitions bearing Nos. 663-664 and 665 of 1965 relate to notices served by respondent No. 3, the Income-tax Officer, on the petitioner in his individual capacity respectively for the Assessment Years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1949- 50 the corresponding accounting years ending on 30th September, 1949, 30th September, 1950 and 30th September, 1948. Petitions bearing Nos. 666, 667 and 668 of 1965 are in respect of the assessment years 1949-50, 1951-52 and 1950-51 respectively and pertain to notices served on the petitioner as a member of an alleged association of persons comprising of R. Dalmia, J....
Jagan Nath Vs. Tribeni Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi120
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Second Appeal has been filed by Jagan Nath, a tenant, against the judgment and order of Shri M. L, Jain, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 6th March, 1969, in Rent Control Appeal No, 691 of 1968. whereby the Tribunal reversed the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and directed the eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute under the provision in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (2) The premises in dispute consists of 3 small rooms on the ground floor of House No. 504 situate in Katra Neel, Chandni_Chowk, Delhi, which originally belonged to one Shri Mukh Ram.' It was purchased by Shri Mukh Ram in the year 1937. Before his death. Shri Mukh Ram made a will, a copy of which is Exhibit A-3, whereby the house in question, along with other properties, was bequeathed to his wife, Shrimati Tribeni Devi, as a limited estate, while full rights of ownership were conferred on his g...
Mohd. Yususf Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT371
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This petition under under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the issuance of notice of eviction issued to the petitioners under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1954, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) ; issued by the Managing Officer and which has been affirmed by the authorities including the Central Government acting under Section 33 of the Act.(2) The admitted facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 was in occupation of property No. 946 while petitioner No. 2 Was in occupation of property No 945. It is alleged in the petition that auction of the property took place on 22nd June 1957 and the portion bearing the No. 946 was purchased at the public auction by respondent No. 2, Budha Bai and portion bearing No. 945 was purchased by another person, Shri Ganga Dhar. It is further alleged that on 16th November, 1957, the Managing Officer wrote to petitioner No. 1 that the provisional pos...
Jamil Ahmed Taban and ors. Vs. Khair-ul-nisa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi205
P.S. Safeer, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of S. A. O. Nos. 16-D and 17-D of 1966 in which common questions have been raised. The appellants are tenants against whom two separate proceedings were instituted for their ejectment on the ground of sub-letting or parting with possession of the premises without the written consent of the landlord.2. An application dated 5-6-1961 was made to the Rent Controller, Delhi, under Order 26, Rule 9 and Order 39, Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that a local commissioner be appointed to go to the spot and report as to who was in occupation of the premises. The order dated 12-6-1961 by which Mr. P. Bose, Advocate, was appointed as local commissioner, was passed ex parte and is in the following terms:'I appoint Shri P. Bose, Advocate, as a local commissioner to go to the spot and report as to who is in occupation of the premises in question. His fee is fixed at Rs. 30.'3. The eviction petitions in both the cases we...
Tamil Ahmed Taban and ors. Vs. Khair-ul-nisa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT268
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of S.AO. No 1 -D and 17-D of 1966 in which common questions have been raised. The appellants are tenants against whom two separate proceedings were instituted for their ejectment on the ground of subletting or parting with possession of the premises without the written consent of the lendlord. (2) An application dated 5th June, 1961 was made to the Rent Controller, Delhi, under 0 der 26, rule 9 and Order 39, rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that a local commissioner be appointed to go to the spot and report as to who was inoccupation of the premies. The order dated 12th June, 1961 by which Mr. P Bose, Advocate, was appointed as local commissioner was passed ex- parte and is in the following ternns: 'I appoint Shri P. Bose. Advocate, as a local commissioner to go to the spot and report as to who is in occupation of the premises in question. His fee is fixed at Rs. 30.'(3) The eviction petitions in both the ...
R.D. Gupta Vs. the New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi38
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This is an appeal against an order made by a learned Single Judge in exercise of the original civil jurisdiction of this Court, on an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.(2) The respondent New Delhi Municipal Committee, had invited tenders for carrying out special repairs to roads in Connaught Place New Delhi, vide its resolution dated 22nd March, 1966. The rates received in the tenders being high, the Committee tried to settle the rates by negotiations. On 30th September, 1966. the Committee invited the appellant who was one of the persons submitting the tender, to participate in the negotiations. By letter dated 1st November, 1966, the appellant was informed by the Municipal Engineer of the Committee that his tender for special repairs had been accepted vide Committee's resolution No. 69 dated 14-10-1966 at his tendered percentage and that he should attend the office of the Committee to complete the formal agreement within seven days of the...
H.S. Sobti and Co-engineers and Contractors Vs. the Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT336
Om Parkash, J.(1) This is an application under section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award rule of the Court. The respondent had invited tenders for the work soling and first wearing coat of met tiling on Simla Mandi Road via Bilaspur (Section Ghanna to Nanahol) mile 4/0 to 10/0 The work consisted of the following items:- 1.Preparation of sub grade by excavating earth in all soils up to 9' average depth dressing to camber and consolidation with road roller including disposal of surplus earth within one chain and lift 5 feet. 2. Collection and stacking of hard approved stone for soling at site of work. 3. Laying 6' thick stone soling including packing with stone chips and consolidation with road roller including spreading and consolidation of blinding material moorum or earth etc 4. Collection and stacking of hard approved stone ballast 2' gauge at site of work for wearing coat where no soling is proposed to be laid, 5. Collection and sticking of hard approved stone ba...
Man Singh Patel and ors. Vs. Phool Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT14
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The short question for determination in Civil Revision 682-D of 1965 and Civil Revision 685-D of 1965 is whether in view of section 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59) of 1958, section 15 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Ast 88) of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act') or section 20 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59) of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act ) will apply to the facts of the cases. The new Act came into force on 9th of February, 1959, and section 57 of the same reads as follows: (1)The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952), in so far as it is applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi, is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said Act pending, at the commencement of this Act, before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provions of the said Act, as if the said Act had continued in force and this Ac...
Shambhu Nath Chopra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi210; 1970CriLJ1439; 6(1970)DLT279
ORDER1. An interesting question of procedure, viz., whether affidavits in proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code should be attested by the very Magistrate trying those proceedings or by some other Magistrate, arises for consideration in this reference, which has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the following circumstances:-2. The admitted facts are that the affidavits filed by the first party in the proceedings before the First Class Magistrate (Mr. H. N. Chaturvedi) were attested by Magistrate, First Class, Delhi other than Shri B. N. Chaturvedi, who was trying the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He, thereforee, left them out of consideration to reach the conclusion that he did registered the possession of the disputed properties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has persuaded himself to refer the matter to this Court because, in his view, the affidavits filed by the first party were in compliance with law and h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »