Delhi Court September 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.
Sheo Pershad (Deceased) Represented by Rajinder Kumar and ors. Vs. Jai ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1971
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi169
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is an Execution First Appeal directed against the order of the Commercial Subordinate Judge dated 21st October, 1965. The only question raised in this appeal is. as to whether the application for execution, which has led to this appeal was moved within time. (2) The facts giving rise to the controversy may be shortly stated. A suit was instituted by Jai Narain Pershad for the dissolution of a partnership firm known as Messrs. Jiwan Lal Jai Narain Pershad. A preliminary decree for dissolution and accounts was passed in August, 1947 and a Local Commissioner was appointed. On 18th January, 1949 a final decree relating, to the accounts of the partnership was passed and a decree for Rs. 24,446-13-9 was passed in favor of Jai Narain Pershad one of the plaintiffs against R. S. Chiranji Lal & Sons. A decree for Rs. 39,470-11-6 was also passed at the same time and by the same final decree in favor of R. S. Chiranji Lal & Sons against one Jiwan Lal Shinglu. Some other smal...
Eldee Velvet and Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs. Anant Ram Whig
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi249
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) The appellant, Messrs Eldee Velvet and Silk Mills (P) Ltd.. which is a private Limited company with its registered office in Bombay, has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of Shri R. L. Sehgal, Commercial Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi, dated 11th April, 1961, dismissing a suit. No. 253 of 1958, filed by it for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the respondent herein. Shri Anant Ram Whig. (2) The aforesaid suit was originally filed on 21st July, 1958. On a preliminary objection to the plaint raised by respondent (defendant). the trial court passed an order, dated 29th August, 1958, holding that the plaint suffered from prolixity, and directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint by eliminating all unnecessary pleadings from it. Accordingly, an amended plaint was filed on 13th September, 1958. (3) The facts which led to the filing of the suit are as follows: On 9th January, 1955, the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabi...
Adarsh Woollen Industries, Panipat and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi119
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm of which petitioners 2 to 8 are partners who cirry on the business of manufacture of woollen blankets and other woollen products at Panipat It was also registered with the Director of Industries. The petitioner firm had tendered 7178 numbers of woollen blankets for the use of the Army out of which 6848 were accented after inspection and dispatched to the consignee, the C. O. D. Kanpur. After the goods were received by the consignee there was an allegation that the supplies were of substandard quality and re-inspection was arranged by tHe Deputy Director of Inspection, Kanpur (D.G.S. & D.) at the instance of the M.G.O. Branch (Army Headquarters, New Delhi). It was found as a resuit of inspection that as many as 2120 blankets, representing roughly 33% of the accepted lot, were of substandard quality. The blankets which were rejected after reinspection were found over-stamped and the year of supply shown on some of the blanke...
New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr. Vs. Ram Saran Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi708
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This civil revision arises out of an order made by a subordinate Judge dismissing the petitioners' application for amendment of the written statement filed by them. A similar point also arises in three other civil revisions viz. C.R. No. 57 of 1968, C.R. No. 58 of 1968 and C. R. No. 59 of 1968. New Delhi Municipal Committee is the common petitioners in all the four petitions while petitioner No. 2 in each case is a sub-inspector employed in the department of enforcement or health by the said Committee. The respondent in all the four cases is the same and so is the question raised therein. This order will thereforee dispose of all the four petitions. (2) The common question is that the plea of want of notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was not raised on behalf of the petitioners in the original written statement filed on their behalf but it was raised after a lapse of about 15 months in the amended written statement for which leave of the co...
Ved Parkash Sachdeva Vs. Mohani Sachdeva
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi447
V.D. Misra, J.(1) This is an appeal by a husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the order of an Additional District Judge annulling the marriage under section 12 of the Act. The parties were married on 26th March, 1969 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The wife lived with the husband till 13th May, 1969, and since the husband could not consummate the marriage she left him never to return to the matrimonial home. On 18th December, 1969, the wife filed a petition under section 12 of the Act for annulment of marriage on the ground that the husband was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so till the institution of the proceedings. (2) The husband resisted the petition and claimed that he had, in fact, consummated the marriage on various occasions when the wife lived with him. (3) annulment. for petition the granted so and so, be to continued maiage of time at impotent was husband that conclusion came wife by produced evidence believing c...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, New Delhi Vs. Rajinder Nath and ors ... Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi312; [1972]85ITR296(Delhi)
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) -SINCE common questions of law pertaining to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 have been referred by the Tribunal in these Income Tax References, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The qusestions of law referred are:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the provisions of section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the case for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 respectively (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeals before him could not convert the provisions of section 147(a) into those of section 153(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and that provisions of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act were not applicable to the instant case. (2) References relate to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 relevant to the previous y...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Shanker Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: 1972RLR17
V.D. Misra (1) This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 84-D of 1964 and F.A.O. 85-D of 1964 since common questions of law have arisen from the same facts. The Assistant Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation made an application against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 241.00 as employees contribution payable by the respondents for the period October 1, 1949 to February 1, 1960. Another application was made against the respondent claiming a sum of Rs. 1,187.00 on account of employees' contribution for the period May 26,1960 to June 30, 1961. (2) The respondents contested both the applications and contended that they were not a factory as defined in Section 2(12) of the Employees'State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act). The Employees' State Insurance Court came to the conclusion that the respondents were not a factory and dismissed both the applications. (3) The undisputed facts are that the respondents have in their possession two premises ; one is...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Palace Cinema and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi163
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 1709 of 1967 and Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No. 10 of 1968. The Writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Corpora- lion of Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation.' The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated October 17, 1967 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi) (respondent No. 5) in the appeal (HTA No. 218 of 1966) filed by the Palace Cinema (respondent no. 1) under section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,' against the demand of advertisement tax claimed by the Corporation by its letter dated March 28-1- 1966. (2) The Palace Cinema aforesaid has filed the Civil Miscellaneous (Main) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the demand ofRs.6,750.00 upheld by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, by his aforesaid order be quashed(3) The Palace Cinema is a cinema showing cinematograph films. They also exhibit a...
B.K. Khanna and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. K.C. Nahar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi366
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner-tenant against the respondents-landlords for quashing the order dated 27th January, 1971 of Shri Jaspal Singh, Controller. By the impugned order the Controller allowed the applications of the landlords for amendment of their petition for eviction against the tenant. The amendment sought to add as co-respondents certain companies who, according to the landlords, were in actual possession of the premises because the tenant had either sublet or parted with the possession of the premises to them. The tenant denied subletting as well as parting with the possession and said that these other companies were subsidiary companies of the petitioner which was the parent company. The main grounds of challenge larged by the petitioner are as follows:- 1.The Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain and allow an application for the amendment of the petition of the landlord for the eviction of the t...
Jawahar Singh Vs. Jai Gopal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi63
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This appeal bristles with novel questions of law arising out of undisputed facts. The premises, namely, the first floor of 81, Golf Links, New Delhi, were constructed between 1-6-1952 and 9-6-1955. The respondent Jai Gopal was the tenant therein, Jawahar Singh the appellant being the landlord. In 1956 a suit for eviction of the tenant was filed by the landlord on the ground that the tenant was in an arrears of rent and the landlord needed the premises bona fide for his own residence. The tenant admitted the claim of the landlord but prayed for the two years' time to vacate the premises to which the landlord agreed. A decree for eviction was passed in 1958. Thereafter the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force from 9-2-1959. Sub-section (2) and (3) of section 50 for the first time protected the tenants of premises constructed between 1-6-1951 and 9-6-1955 though section 39 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 had denied ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »