Delhi Court January 1971 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.
Ram NaraIn Vs. Lakshmi Dass Kundra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi268
1. This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is directed against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, which affirmed the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissing a petition for ejectment brought by the appellant against the respondent on the ground that the respondent on the ground that the appellant bona fide required the premises under the tenancy of the respondent of which he was the owner, as residence for himself and the members of his family.2. The premises in dispute were let out in the year 1959 on a rent of Rs.38/- per month. These premises comprised of a room of the size of 10'-9'x9'-9' and a store on the first floor in house bearing Municipal number 5574 situated in New Chandrawal, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. It was not in dispute that the appellant-landlord was himself also living on the first floor of the same house and the accommodation with him was one room, a store and kitchen on the first floor, a barsati on the second floor and a ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. R.N. Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi94
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, which has its northern zonal office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, against an order, dated 18-4-1966, passed by Shri V. P. Bhatnagar, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, declining to amend under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, his judgment and decree, dated 30-10-1965, in suit No. 382 of 1963. and grant future interest to the decree-holder, petitioner herein. (2) R. N. Mehta, the sole respondent in this Revision Petition, borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000.00 from the Bombay Life Assurance Company Limited, and mortgaged certain properties in favor of the said Company by means of a registered mortgaged deed, dated 30-9-1953. The mortgage amount was to be paid back on the expiry of 15 years from the date of the deed. The respondent herein also assigned his life assurance policy as additional security for the sum advanced and agreed to continue to pay the premium regularly and to keep th...
P.L. Bhardwaj Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi236
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) P.L. Bhardwaj, a confirmed Staff Officer, Grade Iii in the State Bank of India has assailed in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the order of the Bank dated June 17, 1970 terminating his services under rule 18 of the State Bank of India (Officers & Assistants) Service Rules, 1957. (2) The petitioner graduated from Delhi University in the year 1965. After selection by the Central Recruitment Board in 1966 he was appointed as a Probationary Officer by the State Bank of India (hereafter called 'the Bank'). At the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank held on October 30, 1968, he was confirmed in this post with effect from October 1, 1968 under the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules (hereafter called 'the Rules') and was selected to attend an Intermediate Course of Probationary Officers at the Staff Training College (State Bank of India) Hyderabad. While at the training College at Hyderabad, on the Ne...
Kailash Chand Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1342
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. The petitioner was convicted Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the 10th of January, 1969, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment whereof he was to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and the imposition of the sentence were confirmed by a detailed judgment containing a thorough appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case which judgment was recorded by the appellate court on the 5th of November, 1969. The prosecution was based upon the collection of 600 grams of 'Amchoor Sabat' at 12.45 p.m. by P.W. 1 from the shop where Kailash Chand petitioner was carrying on the business as a partner.2. No contest was raised before the courts below that the report submitted by the Public Analyst was erroneous or that the commodity, the sample whereof was the subject of the aforementioned report, was not adulterated. The third sample which remained with the p...
Seth R. Dalmia Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi30
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) The following four questions have been referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. on the application of the assessed and the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:- (1)'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal rightly rejected the assesses claim for deduction of the interest payment of Rs. 2,04,744.00 (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal rightly held that the Revenue was not stopped from disallowing the claim for deduction of the interest amount in view of the allowance of such claim in the past (3) 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal rightly disallowed the loss of Rs. 1,05,000.00 in respect of 7500 preference shares of the Dalmia Investment Company Limited (4) 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal rightly held that the dividend amount of Rs. 95,664.00 did not constitute the income of the asses...
Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate, Delhi Vs. Bhagwan Dass Fadir Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi17; ILR1971Delhi84
V.D. Misra, J. 1. This is landlord's Second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal upholding the order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the application for eviction of the tenant.2. One Kalsum Bi was the owner of the premises bearing Municipal Nos. 1817 to 1821. M/s. Bhagwan Dass Faqir Chand (hereinafter called the 'Tenant') became a tenant under Mst. Kalsum Bi about 25/30 years ago. Portions of the property were sublet from time to time to various persons. A part of the property was sublet to M/s. Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate (hereinafter called the 'land lord'). The entire building was purchased by the landlord in 1958 from Mst. Kalsum Rehman. Thereafter an application for eviction of the tenant under Clauses (b) and (g) of the proviso to sub - section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1958) was made on the grounds that the tenant has sublet the premises ...
Muni Lal Vs. Nand Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi300; 7(1971)DLT229
1. Nand Lal, respondent in S.A.O. 175-D and S.A.O. 176-D of 1966 and appellant in S.A.O. No. 211-D of 1966, is the owner of house No.5457 situated in Basti Harphool Singh, Delhi, having two flats on the ground floor and two on the first. There is also a garage and some 'kothas' attached to the house. This property previously vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property and was in the occupation of tenants since about the year 1948 or so.2. Before, the Partition of the country in 1947, Nandlal was a resident of Okara in the district Montgomery now a part of West Pakistan. He used to have an interest in three factories there and was carrying on commission agency business. He was an income-tax assessed. As a result of the Partition he had to migrate to India and stayed at different places like Dehra Dun and Moghul Sarai, and ultimately came to Delhi to earn his living. One or the other of his sons was helping him in his business. He started living with certain members of his family includi...
Mushtaq Ahmed Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi20
ORDER1. By the this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that the Estate Officer be directed to forthwith de-requisition the remaining portions of the property known as York Hotel Building requisitioned in the year 1942 and may further be restrained from delivering possession of the de-requisitioned portions to respondent No. 3 or any other person and respondent No. 3 may be restrained from taking possession of the said property. Respondent imp leaded in the petition are Union of India and Estate Officer. Directorate of Estates, as respondents 1 and 2 Shri ram Pershad respondent No.3 as also eleven other persons as respondents 4 to 14 who are stated to be actually in occupation of the property sought to be de-requisitioned. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the property known as York Hotel Building situated in Block 'K' Connaught Circus, New Delhi, comprising old Municipal Numbers 8791 to 8805. By orders dated October 19, 1942 and October 31,1942 this b...
The Management of Delhi Transport Undertaking Vs. B.B.L. Hajeley and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi568
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is a writ petition filed by the management of the Delhi Transport Undertaking (hereinafter called the'Undertaking') against the order of the Labour Court, Delhi, dated February 8, 1969, by which it rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approving the removal of the respondent No. 2 from the service. (2) Respondent No. 2 was originally employed as a driver under the Delhi Road Transport Authority (hereinafter called the Transport Authority) which had been constituted under the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950. Respondent No. 2 later on became an B employee under the Undertaking of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) by virtue of the Second Schedule to the Delhi Municipal Corporation 'Act, 1957, (hereinafter called the Corporation Act) read with Sections 511, 516, 53 and 64, An enquiry was started against respondent No. 2 and he was served with a charge...
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Hira Lal Tota Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi29; ILR1971Delhi250
1. Who has the power to remove encroachment on a public street in Delhi, the Delhi Municipal Corporation acting under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. 1957 (hereinafter called the Corporation Act) or the Gaon Panchayat acting under the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act. 1954 (hereinafter called the Panchayat Raj Act)? The Delhi Municipal Corporation appellant herein) sent a notice dated 20-8-1960 to Shri Hira Lal (respondent herein) asking the latter to remove encroachment from a public street in village Kapas Hora. The notice purported to be under Sections 320 and 321 of the Corporation Act. Shri Hira Lal thereon instituted a suit praying that the Corporation be restrained from proceeding against him. The plaintiff, interalia alleged that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to serve the said notice on him inasmuch as the village was governed by the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The suit was defended by the Corporation, inter alias on the ground that...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »