Delhi Court December 1972 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.
Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd. Vs. Mis Suraj Balram Sawhney and So ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR93
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of eviction on the ground of unauthorised Sub-letting passed by the Controller on a petition moved by respondent No.1 herein under section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the appellant and the Vaish Co-operative Urban Bank limited. The allegations of respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter called the landlord) was that it had let out its premises, 'Sawhney Sadan' at P-B, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi to the Vaish Co-operative Urban Bank Limited (hereinafter called the tenant) on a monthly rent of Rs 150.00. It was alleged that the said tenant had sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the demised premises to the Vaish Co-operative Adarsh Bank Limited (hereinafter called the appellant) after 9th day of June, 1952 without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. Indeed the specif...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi822
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) A challan was filed against petitioner Ashok Kumar in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, for an offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code . The case had to be tried by the procedure prescribed under Section 251-A Criminal Procedure Code . The learned Magistrate, after perusing the documents referred to in Section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the counsel for the prosecution as well as for the defense, pasted the following order on 3-6-1972:-- 'CASEcalled. Accused present. I have perused all the documents mentioned in the report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code . and have heard the learned defense counsel and the learned prosecutor at great length. It has been argued by the learned defense counsel that there is absolutely nothing on record to connect accused Ashok Kumar with the commission of the offence. In the statement of complainant Subhash Chander the person who is said to have assaulted Harish Chander is named as Nanhe. It is ur...
Suraj Mal and anr. Vs. Manohar Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi1016
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of L.P. A. No. 271 of 1972, R.S. A. 92-D of 1966 and R.S.A. 93-D of 1961 is a common question of law arises in all the three cases. In order, however, to appreciate the question of law it is first necessary to briefly notice the facts of each case. (2) L.P. A. 27 of 1972 comes before us on a certificate given by a learned Single Judge of this court under Clause X of the Letters Patent while accepting R.S.A.264-D of 1962. The second appeal in this case was referred against concurrent judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration that the order dated 8th April, 1960 of the Chief Commissioner allotting land in village Bhorgarh, Delhi worth Rs. 7.09 out of the plaintiff's holding allocated to him in consolidation proceedings in village Bhorgarh was ultra vires, illegal, without jurisdiction, void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction against the defenda...
Dhan Raj Jayna Vs. S.P. Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi297
1. The main question for decision in this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) is whether the respondent tenant complied with the order of the Controller passed under Section 15 of the Act to obtain the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act. But in answering this question, various other provisions of the Act. e.g. Section 2(k) , 4 to 9, 12 and 13, and Section 59 to 60 and 72 of the Contract Act have also to be considered.2. The premises of the appellant landlord were let to the respondent tenant from 1-7-1944., In the suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent filed by the landlord under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent control Act. 1952 the standard rent to the premises was fixed by Shri J. L. Tandon, Subordinate Judge at Rs. 717-75 including house-tax. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the High Court on 19-3-1964. during the pendency of the appeal. the Delhi Rent Co...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, New Delhi Vs. State Trading Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi666; [1973]92ITR294(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. was incorporated as a company on 18th May 1956 its entire share capital being subscribed by the Government of India. Its first accounts were closed on 30th June 1957. It started its trading activities to wards the beginning of July, 1956. By a letter dated 21st June 1956 the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry conveyed to the company a sanction of Rs. 2 lacs 'as grant-in-aid to the State Trading Corporation of India (Private) Ltd. to enable the corporation to meet the expenditure in connection with its administration.' This letter was caplioned as follow? : 'STATETrading Corporation-Initial Establishment and Miscellaneous Expenditure-transfer of funds-sanclicned.'(2) The amount in question was sanctioned before the company had commenced its trading activities. The amount was not spent at all and the company under intimation to the Government treated it as a capital reserve. (3) When the company was assesse...
Jagat Singh Vs. Shyam Laj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR10
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The tenant had contended before the Rent Control Tribunal that the order under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 passed against him should have been restricted to the deposit of the arrears of rent due till the date of the application made by the landlord there under and that sub-Section of Section 15 does not contemplate that the Controller should order the tenant to pay rent pendente life. This contention was negatived by the Tribunal. Hence this second appeal. (2) The distinction between sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2) of Section 15 are as follows : 1. While the petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of real falls under sub Section (1), petition for eviction on other grounds falls under sub-Section (2). thereforee, while the Controller has to make an order under sub-Section (1) he would not make order under sub-Section (2)except on an application by the landlord. (3) Such an application under sub-Section (2) may be made by the landlor...
Birla Higher Secondary School Vs. Lieutenant Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi634
T.P.S. Chawala, J.(1) The Biria High School Society, Delhi was registered in 1934 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It maintained and managed a school. By a letter dated 1st August, 1945 the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, accorded permanent recognition to this school for the purpose of examinations of the Board of Higher Secondary Education for Delhi. Subsequently, in 1958, the Society was registered again as the Biria Higher Secondary School Society. its primary object was to maintain, control and manage the already established school known as the 'Biria Higher Secondary School'. According to its Rules and Regulations, the general conduct, management and superintendence of the affairs of the Society is entrusted to an 'Executive Committee', and the particular conduct and management of the affairs of the School to a 'Managing Committee'. The Managing Committee is subordinate to and required to conform to the directions of the Executive Committee. (2) At present the School employs...
Murari Lal Vs. Gopal Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi251; 1973RLR112
1. This petition is directed against the trial Court's order made on the 2nd February. 1967. Gopi Chand the principal respondent to this petition. filed on application dated the 23rd July, 1966 under Sections 11. 12 and 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act (here-after called the Act) and the said application was registered as suit N. 272/ 1966. It was alleged by respondent No. 1 in the said application that respondent No. 1 ( the petitioner before me) appointed respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as arbitrators and the said arbitrators having not made the award within the period prescribed by law and having misconducted the proceedings were liable to be removed. It was prayed that the authority of the arbitrators to act in the matter under reference be revoked. proceedings taken before them. be declared null and void and they may be removed. Another prayer was that fresh arbitrator or arbitrators may be appointed by the Court to decide the dispute. Along with the said application. respondent No. 1 fil...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, New Delhi Vs. Ram Swarup Gupta Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi624; [1973]92ITR495(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) In the calendar year 1957, Ram Swarup Gupta was carrying on business both as an individual and as a partner in an unregistered firm known as M/s. Rashtarya Grab Udyog. According to him, this firm was owned by him till 1st September, 1957, when it became a partnership. He had suffered a loss up to 31st August, 1957 in this business to the extent of Rs. 13.041.00. In his assessment for the year 1958-59, he claimed that this loss of Rs. 13,041.00 which was incurred by him before 1st September, 1957, should be deducted from his other business income. The Income Tax Officer disallowed this amount on the ground that the partnership had taken over the assets and liabilities of the business on 1st September, 1957, and the loss was not suffered by the assessed as a proprietor of the firm. (2) On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was held that the assessed had not been able to show that the firm came into existence on 1st September, 1957, or that he was the pr...
Ram Autar Etc. Vs. Laxmi Narayan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR39
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by three brothers. Ram Avtar, Roshan Lal and Daulat Ram, who were the repondents to an eviction petition filed by the respondent landlord on the 12th March, 1964. The respondent had sought the eviction of the present petitioners on the ground of bona-fide necessity. The original application was amended on the 28th January, 1966 and Ram Autar and Roshan Lal, present petitioners, were also arrayed as respondents. The Additional Rent Controller after recording evidence and hearing the parties, passed an eviction order in favor of the present respondent against the petitioners before me on the 25th November, 1966. (2) An appeal was filed by the petitioners under section 38 of Act 59 of 1958 which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal and the order of eviction passed against them was affirmed. (3) An application was filed by the respondent Laxmi Narain on the 14th May, 1968 under s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »