Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi886
B.C. Misra, J. (1) The plaintiff-company instituted the suit on 3rd May, 1964 in the subordinate Court which has since been transferred lo this Court under the Delhi High Court Act for the recovery of the amount of terminal tax alleged to have been illegally collected by the Central Government. The plaintiff-manufacture Oxygen gas and brings them in gas Cylinders in the Union territory of Delhi and is required to pay terminal tax under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 66 of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed there under. Under section 178(1) of the Act. the Central Government has been authorised to collect terminal tax through an organisation known as Terminal Tax Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Agency) and the Central Government has under section 180 of the Act been further authorised to distribute the collected amount of tax to various local authorities operating in the Union territory of Delhi. Section 183 of the Act provides f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi555
S.N. Andley, J. (1) Since the correctnsss of the decision of S.K.. Kapur J. in Sinf. Shakuntla and others v. Pi. Bhagwan Dass and others reported in (1967 (69) Punjab Law Reporter 130 (Delhi Section) was assailed by the respondents in these revision petitions, they were ordered to be placed before a Division Bench. The point of law is common to these revision petitions and it is whether permission to execute a decree for eviction passed before the coming into force of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964, was necessary, (2) The petitioner in all these petitions is the landlord of House No. 2767/1937 situate in Gali Ahiran, Malka Ganj, Delhi. The respondent in each of these petitions is occupying a portion of this house as a tenant under the petitioner. While Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, was in force, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1956, was passed. Under section 19 of this Act, a decree for the eviction of a tenant from any building...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 9(1973)DLT135
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) (DECEMBER 22, 1972)-When is a Hundi payable on demand or otherwise than on demand is the question that calls turn determination (2) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial court, dated 16th April, 1970 holding that the Hundi in question being a bill of exchange payable on demand was not liable to any stamp duty. (3) The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs 1,555.00 on the basis of a Hundi under Order 37 Rule 2 C.P C. Objection having been taken by the defendant that the Hundi was insufficient in stamp, the following preliminary issue was framed :- Whether the document in question is insufficient in stamp If so its effect. The trial court found that the document in question did not require any stamp duty. It is this order which is being challenged in the civil revision. The document in question reads as follow :- 'RS.1500.00 Dated 4th November, 1968. Due Date 4th April. 1969. Hundred and eighty days after this date I Suraj Ram Kh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi605; [1973]92ITR394(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The following question has been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act): 'Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law competent to reduce the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) to a figure lower than the sum equal to 2/g of the tax for every month during which the default continued but not exceeding the aggregate 50^ of the tax?'(2) The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The income tax return of the respondent herein, who will be referred to hereinafter as the assessed, for the assessment year 1961-62 was due to be filed on or before z8-9-1961. The assessed did not file the return by that date nor did she apply for extension of time for filing the return. The return was filed en 3-5-1962, i.e., after a delay of about 7 months. When the Income-tax Officer proposed to levy a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi171
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. The main question on which our opinion is sought in this reference under Section 57(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is whether the five identical letters dated 6th March 1961 written by Smt. Satya Wati to Jagdish Rai, Raman Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Satish Kumar and Sudershan Rani are liable to stamp duty under Article 35 of Schedule 1-A (Delhi) of the Stamp Act as being a 'lease' as defined in Section 2(16)(b) of the said Act.2. The letters open with the following sentence:-'With reference to the oral arrangements arrived at with you on 3rd March, 1961 we have to put on record the same as under'.The rest of the letters are supposed to be a record of the various terms of the lease, as many as seventeen, said to have been agreed between the parties orally on 3rd March 1961. Briefly, the arrangement was to be that a lease of a furnished cinema building was given to Satya Wati by the five addresses (Lessers) from month to month with effect from 3rd March 1961 on a monthly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi88
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) During the pendency of civil revision 126 of 1967 Hazari Lal, respondent died on August 1, 1967. On December 4, 1967, C.M. 1514-J/67 was filed under Order 22 rules 2 and 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased. It was urged that proceedings being not an appeal but in revision, Order 22 did not apply and there was no prescribed period of limitation for such an application. (2) Safeer, J., before whom the matter came up, has referred the following question for decision by a larger bench :- 'IS the revisional jurisdiction given by section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code a part and parcel in its true nature of the appellate jurisdiction provided by the Code and are the provisions in Order 22 of the Code applicable to revision petitions in view of rules 11 and 12 in the Code and whether the provisions in the Limitation Act are also attracted to civil revision petitions where applications are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi531
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This writ petition has been filed by 28 brickkiln owners, who are manufacturing bricks in the Union Territory of Delhi, to challenge various provisions of the Delhi Bricks (Distribution, Sale Movement and Price) Control Order, 1963, which was promulgated by the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi in exercise of power under section 3 of the East Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Act, 1949, extended to Delhi. It also challenges various orders and directions issued by the authorities concerned in purported exercise of the powers under the aforesaid Order and the prosecutions launched against the petitioners for breach of such conditions. This writ petition was amended by adding another ground of attack as allowed by this Court by order dated October 10, 1972. With the writ petition, the petitioners have filed a copy of the aforesaid Order as annexure 'A'. It is, however, not disputed that the aforesaid Order was amended in 1963 itself and we have heard arguments upon the v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi877
S. Rangaranjan, J. (1) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (SHRI Joginder NASH), has by his order dated 4th Agust, 1972. made a recommendation to this court that the order of the learned S.D.M. (Shri A.S. Awasthi). passed in proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code ., be quashed in the following circumstances. (2) I have heard shri R.D. Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner (Rajinder Singh), Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent (Abdul Majid) and Shri H.R. Bhardwaj for the State, This case highlights the kind of difficulty that courts face when dealing with certain problems that arise in crowded it owns and cities and the need for a kind of interpretation wherever possible of existing laws to meet with such problems. (3) According to Rajinder Singh he was tenant of a portion of shop No. G-55. Karbala, New Delhi, which consisted of only one room with a single entrance where he used to keep the clothes in which he traded outside the shop, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1973(27)FLR363]; 1973LabIC1290; (1973)IILLJ307Del
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The award of the Labour Court (Respondent 2) on a reference under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made by the Delhi Administration (Respondent No.1) directing the reinstatement of Sadhu Ram (Respondent No. 3) is under attack in this writ petition filed by the petitioner employer. (2) Sadhu Ram was a probationer bus conductor whose services were terminated on 7-9-1967 in accordance with his contract of service and the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 which continued to be in force under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 under which the employer could terminate his services without notice and without assigning any reasons. But on 23-4-1966 Sadhu Ram had lost 50 bus tickets. On 24-9-1^66 he was served with a chargesheet. On 21-8-1967 he was informed that the inquiry against him would take place on 8-9-1967. No occasion for holding the inquiry arose, however, because of the above-menti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1973RLR165
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The facts leading to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constiution are briefly as follows : Late Shiv Lal Malik had filed some claims in respect of certain immovable properties left by him in the territory which is now in Pakistan but died later, on '6.12.1954, when some of his claims had not been finally verified. His widow, Smt. Viran Wali and his adult sons (three) were substituted in his place on 3.S.1955 After such subsitution, Smt. Viran Wali was paid Rs. six thousand six hundred and seventeen in cash on 27.2.1956 by way of compensation; statements of account 'were issued to her sons. In May, 4956, the sons purchased property worth about Rs. 12,000.00 After adjusting the value of the purchased property they had a credit balance of Rs. 3,75 2.1. For this amount a draft was issued by the Regional Settlement Authorities, Patna, and sent to the Regional Commissioner, Delhi, for disbursement as the sons were living at Delhi. The Regional Settlement C...
Tag this Judgment!