Delhi Court March 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.
Kapur Chand Vs. Gopal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: 1971RLR27
S.N. Shanker, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Competent Authority dated September 30, 1970 granting permission to respondent No. 1 landlord to file an application for petitioner's eviction from a premises in his occupation as a tenant at a rent ofRs. 18.00 per month. (2) The case of the landlord in his application under sec. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, before the Competent Authority was that the petitioner was a man of status and could secure an alternative accomodation if evicted from the premises. The Competent Authority after hearing the parties and taking into account the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sufficient means and, thereforee, granted the permission. (3) PT. Kailash Narain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged thai these findings of the Competent Authority are against record and based on in-admissible evidence. According to the ...
Krishan Gopal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi272
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is a regular second appeal brought by the pliaintiff who has lost in both courts below. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to challenge the notice of demolition issued by the defendant, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The case of the plaintiff was that he was not served with any demolition notice or order and hence the attempt of the Corporation to demolish part of his house No. 508/1/2 situated in Mohalla Mantola, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, was illegal and ultra-vires. He prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from demolishing any nortion of the house. The Corporation stated in its reply that it had duly served the notice under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Further, it was submitted that the construction had been made in the premises without obtaining any peimission. It was also pleaded that the notice of demolition had been served ...
Madan Mohan Manoharlal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi257
S.N. Andley, J.1. These two appeals which are being dealt with by this common judgment are against the common judgment dated January 2, 1967, of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 489 of 1962 and 511 of 1962.l The Additional District Judge gave judgment upon references made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, on behalf of the respective appellants. The land involved in the two appeals measures 50 bighas 19 bids was and is situated in estate Sadhora Kalan, Delhi. Out of this land 35 bighas 7 bids was belong to Shanker Dass Seth (appellant in R.F.A. No. 78 of 1967) and 15 bighas 12 bids was belong to Madan Mohan (appellant in R.F.A. No. 77 of 1967). These two pieces of land adjoin each other. The appellants had in 1958, submitted a lay out plan to build a colony to be known as Sangham Park. This lay out plan was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as communicated in their letter dated September, 30, 1958 subjected to tw...
Gur Parshad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi669
(1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 52 and 53 of 1969. (2) The petitioner was standing separate trials under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act when he made applications with the prayer that the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta may be summoned as a defense witness for being examined in court. The material part of the application is :- 'THE petitioner wants to examine the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, as a defense witness in connection with matters not to the examination of the report which is conclusive but matters extraneous to the report such as the dates on which the sample was opened, how it was kept, in what condition it was kept and the private correspondence that took place between the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, and this court in the absence of the petitioner.'(3) At the very outset I must observe that no correspondence, which is placed on judicial record, can be termed as p...
Mauan Mohan Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi599
S.N. Andley, J.(1) These two appeals which are being dealt with by this common judgment are against the common judgment dated January 2, 1967, of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 489 of 1962 and 511 of 1962. The Additional District Judge gave judgment upon references made to him under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on behalf of the respective appellants. The land involved in the two appeals measures 50 bighas 19 bids was and is situated in estate Sadhora Kalan, Delhi. Out of this land 35 bighas 7 bids was belong to Shankar Dass Seth (appellant in R.F.A. No. 78 of 1967) and 15 bighas 12 bids was belong to Madan Mohan (appellant) in R.F.A. No. 77 of 1967). These two pieces of land adjoin each other. The appellants had, in 1958, submitted a lay-out plan to build a col (2) By a notification dated December 9, 1958 published in the Delhi Gazette on December 18, 1958 issued under section 4 of the said Act, the entire 50 bighas 19 bids was of ...
Dayal Chand Vs. Sham Mohan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi183
1. When must a court decide a case on merits and when must it not do so? The difference between two requires to be clearly explained by analysing the relevant provisions of Order 9 and Order 17 of the Civil P.C. in this case.2. The respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant under proviso (a) to Section 14 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the tenant had been in arrears of rent and had failed to pay the same after a notice of demand had been also defaulted in payment of rent but the previous proceedings brought by the landlord against him for eviction did not result in his eviction because the tenant paid up the previous arrears of rent to the landlord getting the benefit of subsection (2) of S. 14 of the Act but the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 14 of the Act barred the tenant from claiming the same benefit in the second eviction proceedings lodged against the tenant for a second default in payment of rent. The tenant had thereforee no ap...
The United Cereal Products Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1605; ILR1971Delhi607; 1971RLR17
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in C.W. No. 464/70. The first appellant herein is a Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of corn flakes and the second appellant is its Managing Director. The, corn flakes manufactured by the first appellant are sold under the brand 'Bingo Corn Flakes'. M/s. Lipton (India) Limited are the sole distributors of the corn flakes manufactured by the first appellant. On 61-1970, a food inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi purchased three packets of Bingo Corn Flakes from the shop of one Shri Madan Gopal, situated at 78, Ansari Market, Daryaganj, Delhi. One of these packets was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and the Public Analyst sent a report to the effect that the corn flakes contained in this packet were adulterated inasmuch as they contained 5.77% moisture by weight as against the maximum moisture content of 5% by weight prescribed under the standards f...
Kirath Chand Vs. P.R. Varshneya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1971
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT79
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) Under the impugned order dated 2nd September 1969, the Competent Authority granted permission to the respondents (landlords) to evict the petitioner (tenant) under section 19(4) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956. Sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Act requires that the competent authority shall take into account the following factors, while granting or refusing to grant permission :- (A)whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted; (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas; (c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribed.(2) The property bearing Municipal No. 2678, Gali Anarwali, Kinari Bazar, Delhi, which was previously owned by Raj Dulari, had been let out to the petitioner giving him a right to live in a portion of the said house and to sub-let the remaining portions. Shrimati Raj Dulari sold the said house to the responde...
Amolak Singh JaIn Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi562
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) The following question has been referred to this Court at the instance of the assessed under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1922) :- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that the operation of section 6 of the General Clauses Act is not excluded and assessment could be made under section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, though no return of income had been filed prior to 1-4-1962, though notices under section 22(2) of the said Act had been issued prior to the said date.'(2) The matter relates to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the accounting periods for which were the preceding financial years. (3) For the assessment year 1959-60 the Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 22(2) of the Act of 1922 and the same was received by the assessed on July 5, 1959. The assessed, however, filed no return. Notice dated July 23, 1960, under sec...
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi Vs. Mela Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi390; [1972]84ITR323(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This case and the connected case viz. I.T.R. No. 35 of 1966 arise out of an assessment to wealth tax of two brothers, namely, Shri Mela Ram and Shri Ralya Ram. They are both partners in the firm Messrs. Ralya Ram Mela Ram of Delhi and each partner has an equal share. The reference relates to the assessment year 1961-62 and the date of valuation is 31-3-1961. The question referred to this Court relates to the construction of Section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 which will hereafter be referred to as the Act. It reads :- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly valued the assessed's one-half share in the firm M/s. Ralya Ram Mela Ram including the property known as No. 2 Keeling, Road New Delhi, on the basis of the balance sheet value ?'(2) The facts in the case of assessment of Shri Mela Ram in I.T.R. No. 34 of 1966 are the same as in the case of his partner Ralya Ram in I.T.R. No. 35 of 1966, and are as follows:- SHRIM...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »