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.
Bhonri Devi Vs. Gopi Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi222
1. The respondent is a tenant under the appellant-landlady in respect of a shop and a kitchen in a building situated on Old Rohtak Road, Delhi. An application for his eviction was filed under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, on the ground that he had not paid the arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1962 in spite of service of notice of demand. The respondent - tenant disputed the rate of rent payable and stated that previously the appellant-landlady had demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. He, however, asserted that the standard rent of the premises would be Rs. 7/- per month. He, thereforee, asked for the fixation of standard rent at that rate. The Additional Controller fixed Rs. 25/- per month as the interm rent under Section 15(3) of the Act and directed the respondent to pay the arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1962 within a month and also future rent at the same rate, by the 15th of each subsequent month. The ...
Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi Vs. Daryodh Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi59
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The question arising for decision in this appeal is the same as in R.F.A. Nos, 127, 142, 143, 144, 145 and 146 of 1970 in which the appellants are represented by Shri Ramesh Chander while the Union of India is represented in all the appeals by Shri Devinder K. Kapur. The other respondents in all the appeals are not represented by any counsel except in R.F.A. No. 344 of 1970 where Shri Daryodh Singh, respondent No. 1. alone is represented by Shri H. S. Tyagi. Although the question of Court fee in R.F.A. No. 344 of 1970 was raised by Shri H. S. Tyagi, the other appeals in which no such question was raised by the respondents, were also listed for hearing along with R.F.A. No. 344 of 1970, as the question was common to all the appear and if the decision went against the appellant, the same rule will apply to all the appeals. (2) With the consent of Shri R. L. Tandon who is a counsel for the appellant in R.F.A. No. 344 of 1970, Shri Ramesh Chander, who is a counsel fo...
Manmohan Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1010
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 129 and 216 of 1969.The petitioner who is common to these two revision petitions was to conform to the requirements of law and he infringed the provisions of Sections 416 and 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The continuing infringement was discovered firstly on the 5th of July, 1966 at 11.50 A. M. and then on the 4th of January, 1967 at 11 A. M.2. If a person is found contravening the provisions mentioned above, then he will be liable to be punished in accordance with Section 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.3. The 12th Schedule to the said Act mentions Sections 416 and 417 in the first column and in the third column provides that a person guilty of a breach of the provisions of Section 416 of the said Act may be punished with fine or imprisonment and the fine may go up to Rs. 5000/- In case of the breach of the provisions of Section 417 the fine can be imposed up to Rs...
Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi107; [1971]28STC21(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The nature and scope of delegated power to modify a Statute and the circumstances in which the exercise of such a power may be questioned are the general aspects of the questions arising in this and the other connected writ petitions. (2) Under section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act 1950 'the Central Government may. by notification in the Official Gazette. extend to the Union Territory of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur or Tripura or to any part of such Territory with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment which is in force in. a State at the date of the Notification.' (3) Accordingly by notification No. SRO-615 dated 28th April 1951. the Central Government extended the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 to the Union Territory of Delhi with the restrictions and modifications laid down in the said notification. Under section 6( 1 ) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 'no tax shall be payable under this Act on the sale o...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. All India Film Corporati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi51
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The respondent which will hereafter be referred to as the assessed, is a limited company carrying on the business of distribution and exhibition of cimatography films. The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1957-58 ended on 28-2-1957. In the the course of its film distribution business, the assessed made substantial and 'Rajput'. The contract with the producers provided that the assessed would first of all recoup the advanced amount out of the realisations on exhibition of the pictures and thereafter the collections would be shared between the producers and the assessed in specified shares. (2) All the three pictures turned out to be failures and the assessed could not even recoup the advances, not to speak of earning any profits out of these three pictures. The total advances which could not be recouped amounted to Rs. 80,664.00. The assessed claimed it as a bad debt during the relevant accounting year. The Income-tax Officer accepted the debt as genui...
Ram Kali Vs. Gopal Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi6; 1971RLR10
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by Shrimati Ram Rali against the judgment of learned Single Judge affirming on appeal the decision of the trial Court whereby a decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was granted in favor of Gopal Dass respondent against the appellant, has been referred to the Full Bench in view of the importance of the matter. The short question which arises for determination is whether the absence of restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the case for a period of more than two years after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the appellant against the respondent constitutes a good ground under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act for not granting the decree of divorce in favor of the respondent The question has arisen in the following circumstances:- (2) The parties were married according to Hi...
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Kundan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1971
Reported in: 1971RLR15
V.S. Deshpande(1) The Delhi Municipal Corporation gave a notice to the responpent under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, (hereinafter called the Act). The relevant part of the notice dated 9-P-64 is as follows :- 'WHEREASyou have commenced/or carrying on/or have completed the erection of building without sanction as required under Section 332 of the Act............ consisting of one room at first floor situated over 5254 Gandhi Market............you are required to demolish the aforesaid erection within a time of 5 days.'(2) It is admitted that shop No. 5254 is occupied by the. respondent. As the notice was not complied with, the Municipal Commissioner passed an order for demolition of the unauthorised structure. The respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge under sub-section (2) of Section 343 of the Act. Under Section 457 of the Act, the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits shall be followed in the disposal of such a...
Parkash Kaur and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi224; ILR1972Delhi303
V.D. Misra, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of T.V.R. Tatachari, J. allowing the Writ Petition filed by Mst.Bashiran. (2) Wazir Mohd. and his son Jan Mohd. were owners of agricultural land comprising 106 Bighas 7 bids was 13 Biswansis in village Jabal and 68 Bighas 13 bids was 15 Biswansis in village Deoli in Tehsil Sadar District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Wazir Mohd. and Jan Mohd. were both killed Along with some other members of their family in the communal disturbances which took place in 1947 at the time of the partition of the country. Their property was taken over as Evacuee Property. Mst. Bashiran,whowas the only heir of these persons made an application under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Evacuee Act') on March 17, 1954 for the restoration of this property. The Central Government passed an order no. 6(2)/Rest./56/1221 dated 12-11-1957 in the following terms : 'WHEREASMst. Bashiran...
Kishan Lal and ors. Vs. Nathi Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi308
ORDER1. This is a revision petition at the instance of the legal representatives of one Nanhay Ram deceased. The said Nanhay Ram had instituted a suit against the respondent Nathi Lal for recovery of an amount due on a mortage. A decree was passed in that suit on 21st July, 1964 . According to both the parties before me this was a preliminary decree that I have been shown , does not appear to be a preliminary decree in the form contemplated by Order 34, Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am assuming however, for the purpose of this order that the decree is a preliminary decree. After the said decree had been passed, Nanhay Ram died on 22nd September, 1965, had elapsed.Thereafter, an application was made by the present petitioners to be imp leaded in the suit under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code. This application was contested by the respondent who was defendant in the suit, on the ground that Order 22, Rule 3 did not apply. The application for bringing the legal representati...
Raghunath Vs. Sushil Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi33
ORDER1. This revision petition preferred under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act Iii of 1949) hereinafter referred to as the Act, which was made applecable to Himachal Pradesh, is concerned with two hundred square yards of land taken on lease by the present petitioner in terms of the document Ex. PA. 2. The document was executed on the 2nd of October 1957. The Municipal Committee, Nahan, rented out the land at Rs.4/- per year. The land was comprised in Khasra No. 77/1. A significant condition of the lease was that the present petitioner agreed to give the vacant possession of the land back to the Municipal Committee on being served with a month's notice. He was to pay rent only against written receipt and no oral plea that he had paid the rent was to be available to him.3. The definition contained in Section 2 (f) the Act, which is relevant, is :-'(f) 'rented land' means any land let separately for the purpose of being used principally for business ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »