Delhi Court October 1971 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1971 Page 1 of about 27 results (0.021 seconds)Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Tyagi Anani and Company (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi804
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The petition of the respondent made under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. This appeal against the said order is filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent issued on 2t-3-1919 for the High Court of Lahore since then applicable to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and the High Court of Delhi. Clause 10 reads as below :- '10.And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to said High Court of Judicature at Lahore from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise oi the power of superintendence under the provision of S. 107 of the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Ballabh Dass Agarwal Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi506
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The petitioner is the owner of property bearing No. 4, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. The main building was leased to the Ford Foundation in July, 1960, the petitioner keeping the rear annexe himself. The Ford Foundation initially took the premises on lease for 5 years with an option of renewal which was also exercised by them. Having learnt that the Ford Foundation would be vacating the property by the end of June, 1968, Shri Radha Ballabh Aggarwal, the general attorney of the petitioner (Shri Ballabh Dass Aggarwal) was looking out for a suitable tenant. It was proposed that the main building could be rented out to the India Tourism Development Corporation Limited, a Government of India Undertaking. A letter dated 15-6-1968 was written by the general attorney to the Corporation in this connection demanding a rent of Rs. 22,000.00 p.m. In reply the Corporation offered Rs. 20,000.00 p.m. By a further letter dt. 5th July, 1968 the general attorney expressed his consent to...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Undertaking and anr. Vs. Krishna Wanti and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi196
1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motors Vehicles Act against the award if damages by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.2. On June 17, 1960, Shrimati Krishna Wanti, respondent was traveling in D.T.U. Bus No Dlp 257 on route No.10 at about 3-30 P.M. On New Link road a cart full of long loges of wood. which are usually of used as rafters under the roofs and also for the construction of sheds. was going ahead of the bus. These longs were protruding our of the cart. The driver of the bus. while trying to overtake this cart acted rashly and negligently at a high speed. He swerved the bus so suddenly at a high speed that one of the loss of wood hit the arm of there respondent who was sitting next to the window on the left side of the bus and injured her. she got compound fracture of her left arm bones in addition to other bruises all over. She was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where she was admitted for treatment and had to incur heavy expenses. she filed an application unde...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation Etc. Vs. Pushpa Chopra Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1972RLR53
M.R.A. Ansari (1) The deceased was an Accountant in the W.H.O. He was driving a scooter and met with an accident with a bus owned by M.C.D. resulting in his death. The claimants filed compensation for Rs. 3 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded to them 65,000.00 Both the parties appealed to the High Court. High Court went into the question of contributory negligence and reduced the amount to Rs. 50,000.00.(2) Even apart from the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners, the admitted facts prove the negligence of the driver of the bus. The accident occurred at the junction of Road No. 5 and Military Road. A duty is cast upon the driver of the motor vehicle, while approaching an intersection to slow down the speed of the vehicle sufficiently and to take other precautions to see that he does not coillide with any other Vehicle coming out of other road. One of the witnesses for the respondents namely RW-4 has admitted in his evidence that the scooter of the deceased had already taken a tur...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Surjit Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi198; ILR1972Delhi1
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This regular second appeal was referred to a larger Bench at the instance of one of us (Andley J.) because at that time it was felt that the view expressed by Deshpande, J. in R.S.A. No. 328-D of 1962 in re: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Bheri Rain(1) which was decided on January 20, 1971, may require recon sideration. After hearing arguments in this matter, we feel that this appeal can be decided upon its own facts.(2) Shortly stated, the facts are that the respondent had built a building, according to her, in 1957 and, according to the appellant Corporation, in 1960 without its sanction and a notice was served upon the respondent by the Corporation requiring her to demolish the prenmises. The respondent filed a suit in the trial Court for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant Corporation from demolishing the building. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated January 10, 1962 dismissed the suit. The respondent thereupon filed an appeal which ...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Parkash Vs. Smt. Prem Lata and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi369
V.D. Misra, J.1. An Additional Session Judge has made a re-commendation for quashing the order of the trial Magistrate granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/- per month to the respondent-wife in the following circumstances :Chander Parkash, petitioner, married Prem Lata, respondent in October 1956. They had two issues, Anil Kumar a son, and Sushma Rani a daughter. Sometime in 1965 the parties started living separately. The respondent alleged that she was deserted and maltreated and for that reason she could not live with the petitioner. On 25th February, 1969, the wife for herself and on behalf of the minor children claimed maintenance from the petitioner under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The Magistrate found that the husband was getting Rs. 300/- per month while the wife was getting Rs. 292/- per month (wrongly stated as Rs. 212/- per month in the order of reference) as pay. Both of them are employed as telephone operators. He granted maintenance of Rs. 25/- ea...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Das T. Chugani Vs. Wazir Chand Narang
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi156
1. A tenant is protected in varying degrees from eviction by three principal enactments, namely, (1) the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (2) The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and (3) the Delhi rent Control Act, 1958 and similar legislation in other States. The question before us is whether these Acts can b construed harmoniously so that all of them can apply to a given situation or whether any of them is repugnant to the other and is repealed by implication to the extent of the repugnancy.2. The appellant is the purchaser of a house in Azadpur, Delhi, from the compensation pool under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. By virtue of the sale certificate he obtained title to the house with effect from 22-2-1964. The respondent was in occupation of the house from before the purchase and was thus entitled to the benefit of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which absolu...
Tag this Judgment!indraprastha Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi331; [1973]88ITR138(Delhi)
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) -THE applicant in the instant case is a private limited Company. The assessed originally was doing business in the manufacture of steel forgings and steel castings. This business of the assessed, however, was dropped and the machinery of the pilot plant of the assessed's Bahadurgarh factory was sold by the company as borne out from the report of the directors of the company for the year 1966-67. The assessed for the said accounting year had shown an income of Rs. 913.00 under the head 'interest' and another income of Rs. 318.00 by way of profit on sale of stores and spare parts. On the expenditure side the assessed had shown Rs. 11080.00 on account of power and fuel including minimum. consumption charges. Rs. 2200.00 as freight and cartage charges and Rs. 2583.00 as loss 'on sale oF fixed assets. The assessed during the said accounting year. i.e., 1966-67 had sold machinery worth Rs. 3,34.948.00 on credit. The assessed charged interest endues on that account. Before ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi290; [1972]85ITR320(Delhi)
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) Since the question referred in the two income-tax references is common although the facts and assessment years are different, the two references are being disposed of by this common judgment.(2) The respondent is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and production of sugar. In Income-tax Reference No. 40 of 1970, the respondent filed return showing a loss of Rs. 3,30,306.00 for the assessment years 1959-60 for the accounting period ending on 30th June, 1958. The Income-tax Officer after making certain disallowances and add-backs computed the total income of the company at Rs. 2,97,041.00. The Income-tax Officer dis-allowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,859.00 on account of penal interest paid by the assessed on arrears of cess. The U.P. Government levied certain cane cess. The assessed disputed its liability to pay the same and as a matter of fact did not pay it. The levy of the cess was challenged by some of the sugar factories in U.P. who filed writ...
Tag this Judgment!Kulwant Kaur Vs. Jiwan Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi15
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) On the application of the landlord Jiwan Singh (Respondent No. 1) for the eviction of the alleged tenant Kulwant Kaur (appellant) under section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) the Controller passed an order under section 15(1) asking the appellant to deposit rent and arrears thereof on what he called a 'prima facie' view. The Controller did not decide finally either the objection to his jurisdiction raised by the tenant, namely, that the relationship between the parties was that of a mortgagee and mortgagor and not that of a landlord and tenant or the objection on merits, namely, that the notice to quit was not served on the tenant. The enquiry into both these objections is still pending with the Controller who has still to give his final findings on them. The appeal by the tenant against the order of the Controller passed under section 15(1) of the Act was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal firstly on the ground that...
Tag this Judgment!