Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi118
1. The Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd., filed a suit against M/s American Rubber Mills Co., a partnership concern. Harnem Singh Anand, Sunder Singh Anand, Ajit Singh Anand, Ajit Singh Anand, Bhola Nath Jain etc., for recovery of Rs.48,796,08 with costs and future interest. It prayed for a decree for this amount against the defendants jointly and severally by sale of certain stocks pledged with the plaintiff and by sale of certain properties mortgaged with the plaintiff mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the plaint. A personal decree was also sought against the defendants jointly and severally for any amount that may be left recoverable after sale of the pledged and mortgaged property. This suit was compromised an this, court passed a compromise decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants on 26-11-1968. Inter alia, the decree passed by this Court reads as under:--'.............This Court doth pass a preliminary decree under Order Xxxiv, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi150
1. The appellant landlord failed both before the Controller and in the first appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal to obtain an order of eviction against the respondents on the ground that the tenants Respondents 1 to 3 have sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of a part of the premises to Respondent No.4, their sub-tenant, within the meaning of proviso (b) to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) which runs as follows:--'(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord'.2. The reasons why are application for eviction was dismissed by the Controller and the dismissal was upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal in the first appeal were as follows:--(1) The landlord was barred by constructive rest judicata from making the application for the eviction of the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi110
ORDER1. This petition had been filed on 15th March 1965 by the Union of India petitioner under Section 31 of the Arbitration Act for reliefs that it be declared that there is a valid, concluded binding contract between the parties and that the reference to the appointed Arbitrator is valid and binding. The petitioner has come to the Court on the allegations that a second road bridge was to be constructed over the river Jamuna behind Hamayun's Tomb Delhi, and the petitioner on 4th September, 1959 invited tender for the said construction from approved contractors, in pursuance of which the respondent submitted its tender on 1st December 1959 for a sum of Rs. 48,73,800 according to its own design accompanying the tender and thereafter there were prolonged negotiations and finally a letter of acceptance dated 11th May, 1961 (Exhibit R. 20) was issued by the petitioner to the respondent which, according to the petitioner, concluded the formation of the contract. It is further alleged in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi126
ORDER1. This revision petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Judge. Small Cause Court, dated 31st July. 1965 by which the learned Judge has decreed the claim of the plaintiff partially and has refused her other reliefs to realise fire and scavenging taxes for a period of three years from.2. The brief facts leading to the dispute are that the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the premises situated at Rohtak Road, Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 250/- per month which the defendant had not paid for a period of three months from February, 1964 to April. 1964 and the plaintiff instituted a suit for is recovery which has been decreed by the Court below. Besides the rent, the plaintiff also claimed Rs. 109.35 on account of arrears of scavenging and fire taxes imposed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation which has been refused by the Court below in view of Section 7(2) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi122
1. This suit for declaration has been filed by the creditors of the insolvent, defendant No.1, purporting to be for and on behalf of all the creditors (presumably under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act) for a declaration that the partition decree in Suit No.680 of 1967 is a nullity an does no bind the plaintiffs as it had been obtained fraudulently and collusively with intent to defraud the creditors and defeat their claims.2. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed on the record, are that defendant No.1, who is father of defendants 2, 3 and 4 and a son of defendant No.5, who is his mother, was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Dhoomimal Dharamdas. On 14th April, 1967, a petition for adjudging the present defendant as insolvent was filed in the Insolvency Court by another creditor named Chander Bal Kakkar under Section 9 of the Insolvency Act which was followed by a petition of the plaintiffs before me filed on 6th June, 1967. An interim Receiver was app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1972CriLJ75
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. The order dated the 30th of November. 1970. a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 'C' to the petition, has been impugned. The order has been passed under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act. as made applicable in terms of Section 2 of the Union. Territories (Laws) Act. Section 2 of the latter Act finds its authority in Sub-Article (1) of Article 239 of the Constitution of India. It is a Parliamentary legislation as envisaged in the sub-Article, mentioned above. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Section 57 (a) does not hold good in its applicability to Union Territory of Delhi. The submission is that the terms of Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act are such that they go beyond the authority which could be legitimately enacted by Parliament in terms of Article 239 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel concedes that the legislation by the Bombay Legislature was intra vires. That being so, there has been no amend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi602; [1972]84ITR584(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The following question, which is common to both the assessment years under reference, namely, 1960-61 and 1961 -62, has been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'A') (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the New Act) :- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that it was a case of mere change of opinion on the same facts and the assessment could not be reopened under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'(2) The relevant facts may be briefly stated : The assessed in the case is Her Highness Smt. Chand Kanwarji, the Maharani of Alwar, (hereinafter referred to as the assessed). Her assessment for the year 1960-61 was completed on 26th October, 1962 on a total income of Rs. 48,394.00 under section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act). Similarly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT363; 1971RLR49
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The appellant herein is the tenant against whom the original petition for eviction was filed by the then landlord Jai Dyal Puri under proviso (e) to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) on 'the ground that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for the residence of himself and his wife. The Controller dismissed the petition for eviction on the ground that the landlord did not really intend to come to live in these premises. He was living at Ludhiana where his sons were also Jiving. He was getting only a small pension and it was not believable that he really wanted to come to live in Delhi with his wife away from his children with such a small income. In the appeal before the Kent Control Tribunal by the landlord, however, the Tribunal was of the view that the view of the Controller that the landlord did not really want to Come to live in Delhi was erroneous. The Tribunal believed the evidence of the landlord ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi265
ORDER1. This writ petition was originally filed by Khia Ram. Subsequently, he died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners in the writ petition.2. Khia Ram filed this writ petition praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ quashing two orders (Annexures 'C' and 'E'), dated 31.7.1964 and 26.8.1964, passed by Shri Manohar Lal, Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1956. The respondents to the writ petition are :(1) Durga Parshad, (2) Smt. Jetho Rani, wife of Durga Parshad, (3) Smt. Promila, daughter of Durga Parshad, and (4) Shri Manohar Lal. Assistant Commissioner (Slum) with power of Competent Authority under the Slum Areas Act, 1956.3. Khia Ram was a tenant of the aforesaid respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of a shop No. 5464. Ward No. Vi, situated in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 193.31 p. per month. He was carrying on cloth business in that shop.4. On 18.1.1961, a creditor for Khia Ram, M/s. Pujara Lal R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1972]42CompCas396(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, J.1. This was an application under Sections 531, 531A, read with Section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956, moved by the official liquidator of M/s. Victor Chit Fund (P.) Ltd., for quashing a decree dated October 8, 1969, passed by the Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi, in favor of one Kanhiya Lal against V.S. Chellappa and C.L. Devanathan (respondents Nos. 2 and 4 herein) in Suit No. 5502 of 1967 brought by the said Kanhiya Lal against respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein. In that suit a decree for Rs. 1,600 was passed along with costs amounting to Rs. 340. According to the petitioner in this court, Chellappa became a subscriber of chit No, 24 LTB and 23 LTB for Rs. 1,500 each. In accordance with the chit agreement, Chellappa had to pay a monthly subscription of Rs. 50. On May 22, 1964, and July 29, 1964, Chellappa executed pronotes for the sum of Rs. 1,500 each in favor of Messrs. Victor Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. These pronotes had two sureties, namely, N.K. Narayanan, respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!