Delhi Court October 1971 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1971 Page 2 of about 27 results (0.021 seconds)Kewalkant Vs. V.K. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi357
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Kama) Kant, the alleged subtenant and is directed against the order of the Additional Controller, Delhi, dated 23rd July, 1971 by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner for being imp leaded as a party in the eviction proceedings instituted by the landlord Vijay Kurnar Gupta (respondent No. 1 herein) against Lajpat Rai.Mehra, the principal tenant as respondent .No. 2 in this revision.(2) The facts giving rise to this revision are that Vijay Kumar Gupta landlord-respondent No. 1 herein instituted a petition for eviction on 21st December, 1970 against Lajpat Rai, tenant on the allegations that the tenant had unauthorisedly sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of a part of the rented premises lo Kamal Kant, petitioner herein, after 9th June, 1952 without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord or his predecessor-in-interest, There are ot...
Tag this Judgment!General Agencies (India) Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi5; [1972]29STC270(Delhi)
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) The Constitutional validity of Section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called the Act of 1956) is the point which has been canvassed in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (2) The petitioner is a Limited Company and carrying on the business of, inter alia, manufacturing and sale of steel security, equipment, office furniture and steel items. The petitioner is registered as a dealer under Section 7 of the Act of 1956. For the assessment year 1962-63 (ending March, 1963) respondent No. 3, Shri v. K. Aggarwal. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Sales Tax Department, finalized the assessment of the petitioner by his order dated 23rd April, 1966. By the said order, the petitioner was assessed to tax on all their interstate sales at the rate of 7 per cent because no C and D forms were produced by the petitioner. A copy of the assessment order has been filed as Annexure 'C' to the petition. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Desh Bandhu Gupta Co. Vs. K.B. Malik and Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi342; 1972RLR18
Pritam Singh Saffer, J. (1) This petition is directed against an order made by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, on the 7th of February, 1966. By that order he dismissed the appeal which had been filed against the order dated the 26th March, 1965, passed by the Sub-Judge, who dealt with an application filed under Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.(2) The petitioner had filed an application under sections 14. 17. 33, 8, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, on the 3rd of February. 1964. in tile court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. The application bearing the verification under the date 27th January, 1964, was filed actually on the date mentioned above. The trial court initiated proceedings on the said application and the respondents came before it. On the 26th of November, 1964, which was the date fixed for the defendants to adduce evidence, the case was called out at 10.40 a.m. The record bears an order to the effect that nobody was present on behalf of the present petitioners who w...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Sheel Malhan Vs. Shanti Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi155
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The decision of this case turns on the precise meaning of section 10 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) which runs as under : Fixation of interim rent.-If an application for fixing the standard rent or for determining the lawful increase of such rent is made under section 9, the Controller shall as expeditiously as possible, make an order specifying the amount of the rent or the lawful increase to be paid by the tenant to the landlord pending final decision on the application and shall appoint the date from which the rent or lawful increase so specified shall be deemed to have effect.'(2) The respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Act for the fixation of standard rent of the premises belonging to the appellant and occupied by the respondent. Admittedly the respondent was to pay Rs. 300 per month plus Rs. 8.00 as water charges for the occupation of the premises. The respondent pleaded that this payment was by way of rent an...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Devi Vs. Charan Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi874
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This petition is dire,cted against the order dated the 26th of August, 1971, made by Shri H. C. Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under order 44, rule I of the Civil Procedure Code. A copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure A with this petition and discloses that the application was preferred under the date 5th May, 1971. Earlier to the filing of that application the petitioner had preferred an application dated the 11th March, 1971, under the same provision, i.e. order 44. rule I of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code'). (2) Shri Charan Singh respondent before me had instituted a suit against the present petitioner for the possession of the premises in suit and for the recovery of Rs. 540.00 and had obtained a decree in his favor. The present petitioner wanted to file an appeal against the decree so obtained by the respondent. He moved the appellate court u...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Vir Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi372
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The appellant and his mother Sarti and sister Ram girl were tried before the Additional Session Judge. Delhi for an offence under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of one Rajinder on 1-10-1971. The prosecution case against these persons was that one Jhuttar, the father of the appellant, had purchased a portion of field No. 24. Chowkutiawala situated in village Pindrala, Delhi, from one Baldev for Rs. 450.00 and had occupied the said land. Subsequently, by virtue of a settlement, this land was repurchased by Mangat son of Baldev from Jhuttar on payment of Rs. 450.00 and Mangat had cultivated the land and harvested the crop. On 1-10-1970, Mangat went to the land to plough it and was later on joined by his brother Rajinder. While Mangat and Rajinder were resting near this field, Sarti and Ram girl came there at about 12 Noon and asked Mangat and Rajinder as to why they had ploughed their land. Mangat and Rajinder replied that they had repurchase...
Tag this Judgment!Muni Lal Bajaj Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi850
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner, on 27-11-1957, purchased a plot of land measuring about 3000 sq. yards in Khasra No. 222, Mauza Bahapur, Mathura Road, and by yet another sale deed dated 12-12-1958 he purchased the adjoining plot of land measuring about 800 sq. yards from the same vendors. Both these plots have been together marked by the letters A Bcd in the plan filed with the Writ Petition. These two plots are only about 82 feet wide at point A to B on the South and are about 115 feet in width at the apex. i.e. at point C to D. On the west of the plots, there is Railway land and Railway line.(2) With the permission of the Delhi Development Authority, the petitioner built a boundary wall around the said two plots in 1957-58. Soon thereafter he built a warehouse/godown by putting up a hall 30 ft. X 60' ft. and some verandahs etc. (3) Since the Municipal Corporation of Delhi objected to the said constructions the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 231 of 1960 in the court of Sub Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Babu ShahbuduIn Vs. Ghisa Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi21
S.N. Andley, J. (1) In this second appeal, the main question is whether the suit for' ejectment and arrears of rent etc. filed by the appellant against the, respondent is barred by time.(2) The two houses in dispute are Nos. XIV/4122-23 in Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar. Delhi. The respondents had sold these two houses to the appellant by a registered sale deed (Exhibit PA/I) dated January 22. 1937. The sale deed contained a covenant whereby the respondents were given the right to repurchase these two houses on the terms contained in the sale deed. Subsequently by a deed of release dated February 3. 1942. the respondents abandoned their right to repurchase these houses and on this very date executed a lent deed (Exhibit 'RB' also marked 'A') whereby the respondents agreed to remain tenants under the appellant. Thereafter, there were some proceedings between the parties before the Custodian of Evacuee Property with respect to the houses in dispute. By order dated September 14, 1954, the Custod...
Tag this Judgment!Gurbax Singh Vs. Jai Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi671
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The petitioner Gurbax Singh, his brother Parduman Singh and Respondent No. 1 Jai Singh were partners. In 1956, Jai Singh brought a suit against the petitioner and his brother for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The suit was defended by the petitioner and his brother. A preliminary decree was passed against the petitioner and his brother on 26-8-1957. On 29-4-1959, the suit was dismissed for default. The application for restoration of the suit was dismissed on 20-7-1960. (2) The petitioner alleges that Jai Singhi filed an appeal against the order refusing to restore the suit. But the notice of the appeal was served on the brother of the petitioner and not on the petitioner himself. Jai Singh and the petitioner's brother colluded to defraud the petitioner and the brother of the petitioner did not inform the petitioner about the receipt of the notice of the appeal. The appeal was allowed and the suit was restored. A final decree for Rs. 7625-25 was passed a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Parmanand Tulsidas
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1972RLR23
Pritarn Singh Safeer (1) Before the counsel for the appellant could open his address Mr. S. C. Malik accompanied by Mr. Vijay Kishan appearing for the respondent raised the objection that the appeal is barred by time. The contention raised is that in 1926, the then Punjab High Court added rule 2 in order 42 of the Civil Procedure Code :- 'INaddition to the coppies specified under order 41 rule 1 the........... memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the Judgment of the court of first instance unless the appellate court dispenses therewith.'My attention has also been drawn to the relevant rule contained in volume V of the High Court Rules and Order. It is provided therein :- 'EVERYmemorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by copies of the decree and judgment as prescribed by order 41 rule 1 of the civil Procedure Code. In the case of second appeals in addition to the documents prescribed by order 41 rule I of the Code, memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the judg...
Tag this Judgment!