Delhi Court May 1970 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1970 Page 1 of about 35 results (0.021 seconds)Hari Kishan Etc. Vs. Hari Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi163
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The decree-holder-respondent filed an application under Rule 37 of Order 21 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the arrest of the appellant-judgment- debtors (two brothers on the ground that they possess sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, but have refused and are reluctant to pay the same. The learned Sub-Judge, before whom the said execution application was contested by the appellants agreed with the respondents; and ordered that each of the appellant- judgment-debtors be detained in the civil prison for a period of 30 days from the date of the arrest. Warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued. The present excution first appeal has been filed by the appellant-judgment-debtors against the said order of the learned Sub-Judge. (2) The decree in this case was passed on June 10, 1953 for the recovery of Rs. 11,680.00 and costs which amounted to Rs. 977.50. The decree-holder-respondent filed execution applications on several occasions, but no ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushiela Devi and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT39
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This suit relates to compensation for the death of one Suresh Chandra (hereinafter referred to as the deceased I who was the son of plaintiff No. 6 and husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 6 claiming to be legal representatives of the deceased have instituted this suit for recovery of Rs 3 lakhs on account of the death of the deceased owing to the alleged negligence of defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 2 or defendant No 3. (2) The facts of the case giving rise to the dispute are that there was an old neem tree existing outside 20, Alipur Road, Delhi, which is contended by the plaintiffs to be dry and dead tree and which his on evidence been found to have had a branch projecting over the road about eight feet long and eight inches in diameter. On 18th August, 1964, the incident in dispute occurred in the evening while the deceased was returning from his office on a scooter and pissed through Alipur Road on his way to his r...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Lakhpat
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi846
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The Union of India filed this Regular First appeal against the order dated August 28, 1968 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in reference proceedings under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The only Respondent 1mpleaded was Lakhpat, who was originally the sole applicant before the learned Additional District Judge. (2) It appears that Lakhpat died on November 27, 1966 and his legal representatives were duly brought on record by order dated March 31, 1967 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, before whom the reference was then pending against the Union of India. (3) The award was made on August 28, 1968. The Union of India contends that it was misled by the certified copy of the award against whom the present appeal is filed, where the name of Lakhpat was shown, though erroneously, as the sole petitioner. For this reason, the name of Lakhpat deceased in the memorandum of appeal is said to be a mere misdescription. Cm 800 of 1969 was filed on behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Lal Vs. Shadi Ram Ram Swaroop and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT311
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant judgment-debtor and it raises an interesting question of law. The material facts of the case giving rise to the revision are in a narrow compass. Shadi Ram and Ram Sawarup are the owners and landlords of the property in which the petitioner before me has been the tenant. The respondents instituted a civil suit for eviction of the peti tioner under Section 13 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 on various grounds mentioned in the plaint, one of them being non-payment of rent. On 26th July, 1955, a compromise decree was passed against the petitioner-tenant in favor of the landlord directing the payment of arrears of rent due by certain date and in default, the petitioner was lia, ble to eviction. Eventually the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the decree and became liable to eviction. On or about 20th May, 1960 the landlord owners assigned the decree in favor of the respondent before me by a registered...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Timber Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1971]79ITR63(Delhi)
Hardy, J.1. The following two questions have been referred by theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench B) to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act:' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order is in contravention of the provisions of sections 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy, of penalty under Section 271(I)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified ' 2. The assessed is a registered firm dealing in timber. For the assessment year 1960-61, it filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 12,225. In the course of assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer noticed cash credit entries totalling up to a figure of Rs. 17,500 in certain accounts and that they were shown to have been squared up. He also noticed an account in the name of karkhana at ledger folio 22 showing a debit of Rs. 36,900. This was stated...
Tag this Judgment!Mehar Chand and ors. Vs. Jagdish Chand Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi219
Om Parkash, J.1. The facts, in this appeal, against an appellate judgment of the learned District Judge, Simla, briefly, are:-The property, old No. 153, new numbers Shops Nos. 57 and 58, a three storeyed building, situated in Lower Bazar, Simla, belonged to one Kali Das Chakraverty. He sold it to Rupa and Nihala on the basis of a registered sale-deed, Ex. P.W. 1/1, dated 28-8-1881. The successor-in-interest of Rupa and Nihala had partitioned the property. Shop No. 57 fell to the share of Devi Chand (P.W. 1), grandson of Nihala, and Shop No. 58 fell to the share of Devki Nandan, Plaintiff No. 3. Devi Chand (P.W. 1) sold shop No. 57 to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of the sale-deed Ex. P.W. 2/1, dated 15-10-1962. On the northern side of Shops Nos. 57 and 58 is situated a building known as Garib Manzil. This building belonged to a Muslim, who had migrated to Pakistan. Garib Manzil and vested in the custodian. The building was auctioned and was purchased by the defendant. In between...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Khan Chand Bhagat Ram JaIn and Sons
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT460
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) Disputes arose between the parties out of a contract for construction of two lakhs Gallon capacity storage tank at Delhi Cantt. as per contract . No. CWE/D-18-1955-66. The matter having been referred to arbitration, the sole arbitrator made his first award on November 4, 1958. One of the points in controversy, not included in the said award, was referred by him, as a special case, for the opinion of the court, under section 13(b) of the Arbitration act, here in called the Act'. The parties put in, appearace before the court, which by order dated May 25, 1959 gave its opinion on July 26, 1959 the letter communicating the court's opinion, was sent to the arbitrator, which was received by him on July 28, 1959. On the same date the arbitrator issued notices to the parties, requiring them to furnish further details. On August 5, 1959 a request was.made on behalf of the appellant, Union of India, for an extension of time up to September 10, 1959 for furnishing, the deteail...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Devi Vs. Janki and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT342
Om Parkash, J.(1) The dispute, in this appeal, against an appellate Judgment of the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur Division at Dharamsala, relates to the estate of Roop Singh. Roop Singh had died in 1909 and was succeeded to by his mother, Smt. Koklu.Smt. Koklu died on 5-31948. The mutation of the estate inherited by Smt. Koklu from Roop Singh was sanctioned in favor of Smt. Janki and Smt. Daropati, sisters of Roop Singh, and Man Singh son of Smt. Janki. The collaterals of Roop Singb had filed a suit for possession of the estate of Roop Singh on the ground that they were preferential heirs as against sisters of Roop Singh The suit was ultimately dismissed by the High Court. The copy of the judgment of the High Court is Ex. P. 12. It was held that sisters of Roop Singh were preferential heirs as against collaterals.(2) The plaintiff in the present suit, a daughter of Smt. Sahni, a third sister or Roop Singh, had filed a suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, claming one-t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhai Sunder Dass, Sardar Singh (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1972]84ITR106(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J.1. By this application the assessed-company wants the following three questions which it claims are questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated July 17, 1967, to be referred to this court:' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proviso to section 13 applies to the instant case? (ii) Whether the case of the appellant was covered by the judgment dated April 6, 1967, of the Delhi High Court in In re R. S. Chiranji Lal & Sons ? (iii) Whether there was any material, data or evidence before the Tribunal to sustain the addition of Rs. 6,000 in round figures in Srinagar contract ?' 2. The facts are not in dispute. The relevant assessment year is 1959-60. The business of the assessed is execution of construction contracts. The assessed commenced its business from January 25, 1958, and the accounts were closed for the first time on January 25, 1959. During the accounting year the assessed undertook three contracts with respect t...
Tag this Judgment!Shubh Karan Jagnani Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT563; (1970)IILLJ544Del
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This criminal revisions arise out of the recommendations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerning the four prosecutions initiated by the Factory Inspector under the Factory Act, 1948 against the Factory Manager of the Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Three Workers of the said Mills are concerned in each of the four complaints; all the complaints relate to what the Inspector of factories found on the occasion of his visit to the Mills on 15-3-69. Since all the recommendations ''relate to the same visit and the allegations made in each of the four complaints are practically the same, all these four criminal revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.(2) It is sufficient to extract the allegations made in one of the four complaints to understand what, according to the Inspector of Factories, was the offence committed by the Factory manager of the Biria Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited. That Shri Subh Karan Jagnani, manager...
Tag this Judgment!