Delhi Court April 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.
SaleemuddIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi432
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of two criminal appeals and one criminal revision. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1969 is Saleemuddin while the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1970 is the State of Delhi which is also a petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 1970. (2) The appellant Saleemuddin was being tried along with one Riaz Ahmed, a Pakistan national. Two other persons, Mohd. Atique and Mohd. Yunis were also being tried along with them. The charge against all of them was one of conspiracy to commit illegal acts, namely, to commit offences under Section 3 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923. By a judgment dated October 31, 1969 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Riaz Ahmed, Mohd. Atique and Mohd. Yunis were acquitted of the charge framed against them while Saleemuddin was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for an offence punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the India...
Ved Prakash Vs. Chum Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1971
Reported in: 1971RLR76
Prifam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This appeal turns on an interpretation of clause (h) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 (hereafter called 'the Act' (The judgment then reproduces S. 14(1)(h). (2) The elemental y principle of statutory interpretation is that the Wordg employed should be given their plain meaning. The statute is to be construed as to be judiciously meaningful in its own context. Sub-section (1) of section 14 starts with the prohibition that no order or decree for recovery of possession of any premises is to be made by any Court or Controller in favor of a landlord against the tenant and then by enumerating under the proviso separate grounds the provision contains in itself the pre-conditions which when satisfied may lead to an order for recovery of premises by the Controller. (3) The word 'has', the fourth in clause (h), carries in itself the force of the present tense. It has to be interpreted in terms of the words employed in the opening part o...
Roop Chand and ors. Vs. Jawahar Lal Ram Gopal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi193
ORDER1. This revision was admitted on 25th March, 1971, and it came up for confirmation of the stay proceedings before me on 5th April, 1971, when I directed the revision itself to be listed for hearing and also sent for the records. I have heard the revision. The revision is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class. Delhi, dated. 4th March. 1971 by which he has refused the defendant an opportunity to file an amended written statement to the plaint.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff on 6th June, 1967 instituted a suit against the defendants for recovery of possession of an immovable property and for compensation and mesne profits and in paragraph 9 of the plaint. they stated that the value of the claim for possession was Rs. 5,000/- being the market value for the suit premises and for purpose of compensation and mesne profits its value was Rs. 1,864.80.3. The summonses of the suit were served on the defendants who filed a written statement contes...
Suresh Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1416; ILR1971Delhi772
M.R.A.O. Ansari, J. (1) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1969, convicting the appellant herein for an offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also for an offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code . and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (2) The prosecution case against the appellant is that about two years prior to the date of offence, he had married Ansuya, daughter of Balbir Singh, the deceased in this case. The appellant was living with his wife at Muzzafar Nagar and a daughter was also born to them. The appellant and his wife were. however, quarrelling frequently and the appellant was also beating his wife. as he suspected that she was having some affair with her brother-in-law, i.e. sister husband, who was also living in the same village. On receiving information that his daughter was being ill-treated by the appellant, the ...
State of Punjab Vs. V.S. Kumar and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi793; 1971RLR44
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The only question that has been argued in this Regular First Appeal, which has been preferred by the State of Punjab against the decree for Rs. 8,843.81 np. with proportionate costs passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Delhi (Shri Om Parkash Aggarwala) in favor of the plaintiffs, is whether the suit, filed on 12.8.1958, was barred by limitation. It is not disputed that the plaintiff firm at Delhi had supplied certain goods to the defendant appellant between 22-2-1954 and 8-6-1954. (2) In the plaint as it was originally filed the cause of action for the suit was stated to have arisen in the month of December, 1955 when payment was refused, yet again on 16th of July, 1957 when the plaintiffs' special representative met the officers of the Government of the State of Punjab but payment was refused, and lastly on 2nd of August, 1958 on the expiry of the period of notice served on the State of Punjab under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (3) As a resu...
Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. the Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi51B; [1972]84ITR451(Delhi)
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the expression 'tax payable' used in section 280Zb of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act' means the tax payable according to the Income-tax Officer upon regular assessment as contended by the respondents or the tax payable upon a self assessment as contended by the petitioner. This section appears in Chapter XXII-B of the Act relating to Tax Credit Certificates. This Chapter comprises of sections 280Y to 280ZE and was inserted by the Finance Act, 1965 with effect from April 1, 1965. The petitioner is a public limited company and carries on business. inter alia, of the manufacture and sale of cement and refractories etc. It manufactures and produces articles which are mentioned in the 1st Schedule to the .Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951. The respondents to the petition are the Central Board of Direct Taxes (respondent No. 1); the Commissioner of Inc...
Umrao Singh Vs. Man Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi1
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by Umrao Singh defendant appellant is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge affirming on appeal the decisions of the Courts below wherby a dec (2) The suit was resisted by the appeallant who pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The appellant claimed to be in lawful possession of the land. The validity of the sale by Ranjit Singh in favor of the respondents was challenged on the ground that Ranjit Singh was a Bhumidhar of the land and as such the sale contravened the provisions of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. 1948. (3) Folowing issues were framed by the trial Court.- 1.'Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit 2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land by purchase 3. Whether the sale effected in favor of the plaintiff is void as alleged in Para No....
Upper Deab Sugar Mills Ltd Vs. the Company Law Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1971
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas643(Delhi); ILR1971Delhi462
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The petitioner is a public limited company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). Its Board of Directors resolved on 8-10-1966 under Article 117 of the Articles of Association for the first time to appoint Sarvashri Rajinder Lal and Narinder Lal as two Managing Directors of the Company each on a salary of Rs. 5000.00 per month plus commission amounting to 31 per cent of the net profits of the company during a financial year and other service benefits. The shareholders of the company approved the resolution in General Meeting. The total managerial remuneration payable by a public limited company to its Directors is subjected to the overall ceiling of 11 per cent of the net profits of the company for the financial year under section 198(1) of the Act. Section 198(3) slates that :- '(3)Within the limits of the maximum remuneration specified in sub-section (1), a company may pay a monthly remuneration to its managing or who...
P.L. Mukherjea Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi456
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The applicant who will hereafter be described as the assessed, wos an officer of the Government of India. In the statement of case, the period to which the reference relates is the assessment year 1958-59. The previous year ended on 31-3-1958. During this period, he served as an Income-tax Officer at Calcutta since before 1-4-1957 to 19-6-1957. From 20-6-1957 to 31-3-1958 and thereafter he served as an Assistan Commissioner of Income-tax at Bombay. In the four appeals that he filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against his assessment, the relevant assessment years were 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 and the question raised by him was identical. The order made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also shows that when his appeals were beared by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 24-8-1961, the assessed was working as Secretary to the Commission of Inquiry in the A.G.C.R. Building at New Delhi. (2) It is thereforee, not understood why th...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Chatterjee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1971
Reported in: 1971RLR25
Hardy and Deshpande (1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13-3-1970 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was allowed. The appellants are Union of India and the Railway Board, New Delhi. (2) At the hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent to the effect that the appeal is barred by time. The appellants have also filed an application (C.M. No. 1303 of 1970) for condensation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 setting out the facts on which it is said that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, being condoned. (3) The facts are that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was delivered on 13-3-1970. An application for grant of copies was filed on behalf of the appellants on 17-3-1970. The copy was ready on 31-8-1970 and delivery was taken by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »