Delhi Court May 1970 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Charitable Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi49; [1971]81ITR1(Delhi)
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) This judgment would dispose of the following six Income-tax References made under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act):- (1)Income-tax Reference No. 40 of 1965. The Commissioner of income-tax v. Jaipur Charitable Trust, Delhi. (2)Income-tax Refernece Nc. 25 of 1965. The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Yogiraj Charity Trust Delhi. (3)Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1965. The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Jain (Jind State) Charity Trust, Delhi. (4)Income-tax Reference No. 43 of 1965. The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhriguraj Charity Trust, Delhi. (5)Income-tax Reference No. 37 of 1965. The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Jain Charity Trust, Delhi. (6)Income-tax Reference No. 38 of 1965. The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dalmia Jain Charity Trust, New Delhi.(2) The respondent-trusts were created by Seth Ramkrishna Dalmia. The first four trusts were created as per trust-deeds dated April 12, 1948, March 7,...
Tag this Judgment!Basi Devi Vs. Faqir Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT519
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This seconappeal has been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 and is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 17th January, 1968 by which he allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the Additional Rem Controller dated 17th April 167 and finally rejected the petition of the landlord apellant for ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (i) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent - Control Act, 1958(2) The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Basi Devi appellant before me, is the landlord and owner of property bearing No 1715, Gali Madrasa Mir Jamla, Lal Kuan, Delhi and the Respondent 1s a tenant in respect of the ground floor of the said premises. The appellant brought a petition for eviction against the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as bona fide personal necessity, being clauses (a) and (e) of the proviso to sub-sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Khalil Ahmed and ors. Vs. the Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1970
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT49
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) This order of mine will dispose of two writ petitions i. e. Cw 79 of 1967, C.W 1409/67.(2) In C. W. No. 79 of 1967 it was allege' that the petitioners are owners of 56 Bighas and 6 bids was of land situated in Khasra N0. 638/ 199/1, Sadhora Kalan, Delhi. On 13 II.1989 anotification was issued under Section 4 of the Lacd Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) slating that the land measuring 34070 acres specified in the said notification was required by the government for the purpose of Planned Development of Delhi. The land of the petitioners was included in the said notification. The petitioners filed their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Another notification dated 19.7.1965 was published on 29.7.1965. This notification also included land which had also been included in the notification dated 13.11.1959. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act to this notification issued under section 4 of the Act dated 19.7.65 subsequen...
Tag this Judgment!Amrik Chand Vs. Harbans Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT125
T.V.K. Tatachari, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two Second Appeals, S.A.O. Nos. 92 and 306 of 1968.. Amrik Chand is the appellant in both the second Appeals, and Harbans Singh is the respondent in the two second Appeals. The facts which have given rise to these second Appeals are as follows :- The dispute between the parties relates to three rooms and a Varandah in house No. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The said house was Government built property and was allotted to Amrik Chand by the Ministry of Rehabilitation in the year 1954. In 1955, an agreement deed purporting to be a partnership deed was executed between Amrik Chand and Harbans Singh, and the latter was put in possession of the said three rooms and Varandah. Subsequently, disputes arose between them, and AmrikChand filed a Civil Suit in 1957 for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh pleaded that he was a tenant of the premises in dispute and was using the back porti...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjit Singh Uppal and ors. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi155
1. This petition is directed against orders made by a letter of 26th July, 1966 emanating from the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, New Delhi by which the petitioners have been informed that their names have been removed from a selection panel on which the names had been brought sometime back and that they would hold their present posts ex gratia till such time as they are re-empanelled through fresh selection. The result of the issue of this letter, according to the petitioners, is that though they continue to hold the posts to which they were appointed after the earlier selection and subsequent passing of the prescribed course, they will again have to appear and compete for being selected and if at all selected would become junior to those who have been empanelled in the subsequent selections or even in the subsequent selections or even in the selection which took place when the petitioners were also empanelled. The complaint of the petitioners is that the impugned action...
Tag this Judgment!Baluev Raj Vs. Tub Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT4; 1971RLR84
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of six civil revisions (Civil Revisions Nos. 74 to 79 D of 1966) which can be coveniently disposed of together. The revisions are directed aga.inst the common appellate order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dated 31st January, 1963 by which the learned Judge reversed the order of the trial Court dated 16th July, 1965 and finally rejected the application of the plaintiffs in the suit for grant of temporary injunction. However, on admission of the revision, stay of eviction was granted by this court on 8th February, 1966. (2) The material facts of the case giving rise to the dispute briefly stated are that firstly one suit was instituted by seven plaintiffs but later on the suit was split up in several suits and the original suit was continued by Om Parkash and other suits which have given rise to the revisions were instituted by Baldev Raj, Hardev Singh, Amrit Lal, Safari Lal Gurbachan Singh and Darga Parshad, respectively petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Ganga Datt and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi65
Parkash Narain, J.1. A civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction (suit No. 528 of 1962) was filed by Ganga Datt, Attar Singh, Jagat Singh, Amar Singh and Jaswant Singh sons of Debi Sahai in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi against Gaon Sabha of Village Burari in which it was prayed that the order of the Revenue Assistant vesting the land set out in that suit in the Gaon Sabha was wrong, illegal, ultra virus and not binding on the plaintiffs. The impugned order was in respect of the vesting of the land which was the subject-matter of dispute in that suit in the Gaon Sabha in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs.After the amendment of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 by the insertion of Section 161-B, the Union of India moved an application under the said provision for the setting aside of the decree. This application was dismissed by the Court of Shri H. C. Gupta, P. C. S., Sub-Judge 1st Class, ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Sheel Malhan Vs. Chamd Ku Mart
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT448
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The tenancy in this case was created in favor of the respondent on 1st Jay. 1964. The appellantlandlord on 7th February, 1966 filed application for the respondent's eviction under clause (a) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958, herein called 'the Act', on the ground of nonpayment of rent inspita of notics. On 30th April 1966, i.e. within two years from the date on which the premises were let out to her, the respondent-tenant filed ber written st-ltement, wherein she answered paradise all the a.legations of the aypellant-landlord as contained in his petition for eviction. The Respondent 1n her said written statement also disputed toe correctness of Rs 2751- as the rate of monthly rent. She pleaded that the monthly rent in any case, was highly excessive and exorbitant and alleged that to the best of her knowledge the standard rent had already been fixed in respect of the premises in dispute at Ks. 57 per month, If any standard rent had n...
Tag this Judgment!Mangat Ram Vs. Mukand Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT513
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This appeal has been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13th November, 1967, by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal in liming and maintained the order: of the Additional Rent Controller dated 19th September, 1967, thereby affirming the order of eviction of the appellant before me from the premises in dispute on the grounds mentioned in section 14(1)(e) and (h) of the Act.(2) The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before me is that the Rent Control Tribunal had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal in liming without sending for the records of the case and its order was manifestly illegal. The relevant provisions of law are contained in sections 36,37 and 38 of the Rent Act. Section 37(2) prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Controller and lays down that subject to any ...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Bhan Sharma Vs. Suraj Bhan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi792
Tatachari, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of the six Second Appeals, S.A.O. Nos. 315 to 320 of 1969. These Second Appeals have arisen out of six petitions filed by different tenants, for fixation of standard rent in respect of their respective premises which are all in building No. 112-A, Krishan Nagar, New Delhi, in the Court of Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Rent Controller, Delhi. The said petitions were numbered as suits Nos. 26 and 27 of 1968, and Iii, 112, 113 and 114 of 1967. The premises are used as shops, and each petitioner (hereinafter called the tenant) has one shop in his possession. The rent was originally Rs. 105.00 per month, but was subsequently increased to Rs. 125.00 per month. The tenants contended that the rent was excessive, and that the standard rent for each shop would not exceed Rs. 10.00 per month. The landlord, Chander Bhan, who was the respondent in all the petitions and who is the appellant in all the Second Appeals, contended, inter alia, that the Rent Controller...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »