Delhi Court May 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.
M.K. Vasuraj Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi21
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) With a view to regulate development and use of land and buildings in Delhi a civic survey of Delhi was carried out and a Master Plan was promulgated by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) under section 7 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act). The Master Plan, which came into force on 1-9-1962, defined the various zones into which Delhi was divided for the purposes of development and indicated the manner in which the land in each zone was proposed to be used and the stages by which any such development shall be carried out. The Master Plan divided Delhi into various zones such as residential, commercial, industrial etc. The premises situated in each such use zone are to be used only for those purposes and not for other purposes. The premises of the petitioners are situated in residential use zones. They began to be used for commercial purposes after the coming into force of the Master Plan. The dates from whi...
B.M. Bajoria Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1971
Reported in: [1972]42CompCas338(Delhi); ILR1971Delhi715
H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Conctitution of India by B. M. Bajoria of Calcutta against (1) The Union of India. (2) The Company Law Board, (3) Shri S. S. Singh, Under Secretary, Company Law Board and (4) The Director, Special Police Establishment, Cbi, New Delhi. (2) The facts giving rise to the petition are as below : The petiri G. Srinivasan, Assistant Inspecting Officer, Company Law Board, visited the office of the Company and carried out an inspection of the books of accounts and other records of the Company by virtue of authority conferred by section 209 of the Companies Act, 1956. Shri Srinivasan made a report of the outcome of the inspection to the Company Law Board. The Company Law Board considered the report. On January 25, 1969 Shri S. S. Singh respondent No. 3 addressed the following letter to the Director, Special Police Establishment, Cbi, New Dhi, respondent No. 4 :- 'M/S Cuchterlony Valley Estates (1938) is a Public Limited Co...
The Refugees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Munici ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi725
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are all residents and owners of houses and plots in a colony called 'Punjabi Bagh', situate in New Delhi, praying for the issuance of (1) a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take over the services in respect of Punjabi Bagh and perform all the obligatory functions enjoined upon the latter by law and to desist from demanding certain deficiencies or, in any case, from laying down payment of the deficiencies as a condition precedent for rendering the civic amenities and conveniences in pursuance of the said obligatory functions; and (2) a writ of prohibition or a suitable direction to the respondents to forbear from claiming or recovering any taxes, charges or rates from the residents and owners of properties in Punjabi Bagh until the aforesaid civic functions are undertaken and performed by the respondents and civic amenities and conveniences are furnished to the said residents and owners. (2) T...
The Management of Associated Traders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Basan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi578; 1972LabIC126
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The Management of Associated Tindds & Engineers Private Ltd., New Delhi, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ to quash the order dated August 6, 1968 published in she Delhi Gazette on October 31, 1968 of Labour Court respondent No. 2. (2) Basant Lal Respondent No. .1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') was employed as a clerk by the petitioner on a monthly salary of Rs. 150.00 as per Agreement dated November 5. 1960. 'Clauses 1 and 16 of the Agreement are material and are reproduced below: '1.It is agreed between the parties that this contract of appointment is for a specific period of two years only. 16. During the period the contract is in force, this contract may be terminated on either side without assigning any reason thereforee on giving one month's notice or on payment of an amount equivalent in lieu of such notice by the either party. No. notice shall, however, be necessary if the...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Meattels Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi833; [1972]84ITR37(Delhi)
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The following question of law along with the statement of the case was referred to this Court under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act 1922, herein called the Act, by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench B, at the instance of the Commissioner of income Tax, Delhi, Central & Rajasthan, Delhi 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessed company was entitled to the deductions of the loss of Rs. 3,58,/83.00 under section 10(2) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. The Division Bench, when this matter first came up for hearing, before it, referred the question, in circumstances mentioned hereinafter. The referred question reads as follows: 'Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the assessed-company nad sold the Crown Flour Mills to Hindustan Cold Stores and Refrigeration Limited within the meaning of Section 10(2) (vii) of the Income-tax Act 1922, and entitled to the deductions of the loss of Rs. 3,58,783.00under...
Charu JaIn Vs. Chakresh JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1971
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT517
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of proceedings against the respondents under Sections 498-A. 406, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. These were initiated against the respondents on the basis of Fir No. 204 dated 10.6.85 in Ps Civil Lines by the petitioner who happens to be the wife of respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 is brother-in-law and respondent No. 3 is father-in-law of the petitioner. (2) Petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 2 are present. The petitioner has told me on enquiry that the relations now between the parties are cordial and she has been living with the husband for the last about one year happily and now there is no harassment or demand of dowry from the respondents. She actually desires that these proceedings may be quashed because it will affect her matrimonial life. In the interest of justice specially when the husband and wife have started living together, it will not serve any...
P.R. Nayak Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi29
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) On 24-3-1971 the petitioner Mr: P. R..Nayak, an Indian Civil Service, officer, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi from this Court. On 30-3-1971 he filed an amended petition. The present proceedings arc. based on the amended petition.(2) The challenge in the petition is to an order dated 23rd March, 1971 whereby the petitioner was suspended by the President of India from service with immediate effect. The petitioner prays that the said order being un-constitutional and invalid should be quashed. He also seeks a declaration that since he retired from service on 25th March 1971 he is immune thereafter against any action by the Government. A declaration to the effect that the Fundamental Rule 56(ff) is void and ultra virus of the Constitution is also sought by the petitioner. The petitioner avers that after appearing in the competitive examination for the Indian Civil Service held in London and undergoing a period of probat...
Rama Gupta Vs. Rai Singh Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1971
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT375
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is by the tenant. The appeal arises of an application for eviction brought on the ground of non-payment of rent. The landlord, Rai Singh Kain, has succeeded both before the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal. The decision has been given on the basis that the tenant, Shrimati Rama Gupta had previously avoided ejectment by depositing the rent in court, and hence she was not entitled to get that benefit again. In other words, the decision is based on the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act. The tenant has now appealed to this Court.(2) A very simple question arises for decision in this case namely : did the tenant get any benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act in a previous eviction case based on the ground of non-payment of rent? The facts of the case may now be set out The previous application for eviction under the Act was' brought on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ...
Baljit Kumar, Trading as Grand Foundry, Punjab Vs. Ram Saroop and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi153
1. This appeal under Section 109 of the Trade an Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed in the following circumstances:Baljit Kumar-appellant was allotted factory No.77 situated on G.T.Road, Batala, on 2nd May, 1948. On 15th May, 1948 he formed a partnership with Maya Dhari and Sewa Ram. Vijay Kumar, minor was also admitted to the benefits of partnership. The terms of the oral partnership were reduced to writing in the partnership deed dated 5th February, 1951. Baljit Kumar-appellant's sharer was 7 annas in a rupee whereas Maya Dhari's share was 5 anna in the rupee and Sewa Ram's and Vijay Kumar's share was 2 annas in the rupee each. The goodwill of the firm was to belong to all the partners in accordance with the ratio of the shares at the time of the dissolution.2. On 5th April, 1954 Sewa Ram left the partnership and so the shares of the remaining partners were re-defined. This firm was dissolved on 9th October, 1954 when a deed of dissolution...
Chandra Kumari Mittal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi534
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) These three Regular First Appeals (Nos. 77-D, 78-D 'and 79-D of 1961) have been preferred by Shrimati Chandra Kumari Mittal, Rajinder Singh and Harpal Singh respectively against the decrees passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi (Shri Gurbachan Singh) in Lac Nos. 31 and 32 of 1960, which were disposed of by a common judgment. Lac 31 of 1960 arose out of reference application of Shrimati Chandra Kumari Mittal and the other out of the joint application of Rajinder Singh and Harpal Singh under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. This judgment in RFA. 77-D will dispose of Fra Nos. 78-D and 79-D of 1961. The notice under section 4 of the Act was issued on 26th October 1957 for acquiring the lands belonging to the appellants and others. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 10th October 1958. Compensation was awarded by him at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per square yard. Out of 2134 square yards belonging to him Harpal Singh had sold 500 square yards...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›