Delhi Court February 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.
Kanahaya Lal Vs. Jumna Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi160; 9(1973)DLT125
B.C. Misra, J.1. This order will dispose of R.F.A No. 85-D of 1961 as well as R.F.A. No. 105-D of 1961. The second mentioned appeal has, by order dated 31st January, 1972, been allowed to be treated as a cross-objection in the first-mentioned appeal and the references in this judgment are, thereforee taken from the first-mentioned appeal.2. This appeal has been filed by Kanhayalal, plaintiff, against the judgment and decree of a subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, dated 6th April, 1961, by which he passed a preliminary decree in a suit for partition instituted by the plaintiff-appellant on 30th May, 1958.3. The prepositus Bhagwan Dass, plaintiff's father, died on 25th October, 1957, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as sons and defendant No. 1 as his widow and defendants Nos, 6 and 7 as his daughters. This death evidently occurred after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the plaintiff filed a suit ...
Private Limited, New Delhi Vs. Edward Keventer (Successor) Private Lim ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi92
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This appeal has been preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called 'the Act' against the award dated the 24th of October. 1961. made by an Additional District Judge of Delhi, on a reference made under section 18 of the Act. (2) The respondents to this appeal Messrs Edward Keventer (Successors) Private, Limited, were carrying on the business in milk and dairy products for a number of years on a plot of land held on perpetual lease measuring 22.95 acres. A notification under section 4 of the Act dated the 2nd of March, 1950, bearing No. 3702/L/49/MLT, was published in the Gazette of India dated the 18th of March, 1950, which, amongst other land, sought to acquire 20 acres out of the land on which the respondents were carrying on their business. The public purpose for which the land included in the said notification was to be acquired, was the setting up of the Diplomatic Enclave. On the 5th of October, 1951, a notification under secti...
M.R. Sethi Vs. Gurmauj Saran Baluja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi137
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The respondent is the owner of the building on plot No. 12/18, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagfa, New Delhi, comprising of three floors. The ground floor of this building is in the occupation as a tenant of the appellant while the entire remaining building is in the occupation of the respondent. The aforesaid plot has some open spaces in the front and on two sides of the said building. The respondent filed the suit which has given rise to this second appeal on May 15, 1968 which was decided by Mr. M. S. Saini Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, by his order dated April 7, 1970.(2) The respondent's case was that barring the building on the ground floor, the other areas on the ground floor including the open spaces in 'this plot were in his possession; that in order to harass and annoy the respondent the, appellant placed an old, out of order and used Ford car bearing No. Dlc 7525 in one of the open spaces at the place marked 'X' in the plan attached to the plaint a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Ii Vs. Arvind Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1972
Reported in: [1975]98ITR571(Delhi)
HARDAYAL HARDY C.J. - This application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Act', has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi. The application is directed against the order of the Tribunal refusing to refer to this court the following question of law which the application claims arises out of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1965-66 :'Whether, on the facts and in three circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and directing that the sum of Rs. 2,94,425 should be excluded from the total income of the assessed ?'The fact are that seven persons entered into a partnership to carry on the business in the name of Messrs. Arvind Construction Company by an instrument of partnership dated March 23, 1962. On August 25, 1964, Shrimati Phool Wati, which was the fourth partners, died. Clause 6 of the partnership deed provided tha...
Hot Chand Vs. Sadhu Ram, anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi143; 8(1972)DLT419
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Civil Revision has been filed by Hot Chand against an order of Shri O. P. Chhabra, Subordinate Judge 1st, Class, Delhi, dated 16th December, 1970, accepting an application filed by respondent I, Sadhu Ram, under section 8(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act on 27th November, 1969. The respondents in this Civil Revision are (1) Sadhu Ram and (2) Tek Chand.(2) In order to appreciate the points raised in this Civil Revision, it is necessary to state the facts which have given rise to this Revision. Certain disputes arose between, the parties in connection with a partnership .between them. The deed of partnership contained an arbitration clause according to which the parties agreed that all disputes in connection with the partnership would be referred to the arbitration of one Shri Amar Nath Nayyar. In accordance with that clause, Sadhu Ram, respondent No. 1. filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the disputes between the partie...
V.S. Malhotra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1972
Reported in: [1973]88ITR110(Delhi)
Dalip K. Kapur, J.1. The petitioner, an advocate on the rolls of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, has instituted this writ petition to challenge a disqualification imposed on him under Section 288(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is necessary for the purposes of dealing with the various questions arising in the case, to first set out some of the relevant facts.2. The petitioner filed a return of income in relation to the assessment year 1958-59 on 3rd September, 1958, in which he estimated his income to be Rs. 5,000. The Income-tax Officer assessed the income at Rs. 30,000 but on appeal, it was reduced to Rs. 20,000. The Income-tax Officer also referred the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of imposing a penalty on the petitioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of concealment of particulars of his income. A penalty of Rs. 3,000 was imposed on the petitioner thereafter, by an order dat...
Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi554
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of regular First Appeals Nos. 27-D and 28-D of 1962. A Additional District Judge of Delhi, disposed of Land Acquisition case No. 74 of 1960 by his detailed order dated the 27th October, 1961, in terms whereof he also disposed of land acquisition case No. 73 of the same year. These two appeals are directed against the aforementioned two orders. (2) The appellants in Regular First Appeal No. 27-D of 1962 are Patiala Flour Mills Company (Private) Limited, while Regular First Appeal No. 28-D of 1962 has been preferred by Messrs. Modi Sugar Mills. Limited. The appellants in the two appeals purchased land in Delhi through Rai Bahadur Gujarat Mal Modi, who happened to be the Chairman of Modi Sugar Mills, Limited. The land was purchased for setting up a flour mill and a vanaspati factory. The flour mill was, according to the deposition of A. W. 10 Rai Bahadur Gujar Mal Modi, to be set up by Patiala Flour Mills Company, Limited, appellants in Regula...
Kailash Wati Bajaj Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi692; 1973LabIC954
Jagjft Singh, J. (1) Lady Head-Constables Kailash Wati Bajaj, Narinder Kaur, Krishna Kumari and Sumitra Devi belong to the Delhi Police Force. Out of them Shrimati Kailash Wati Bajaj was the senior-most but her name was not included in promotion list 'D' approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Delhi, on June 4, 1971. The list was prepared in accordance with Standing Order No. 238, issued on February 12, 1971 by the Inspector General of Police, and by it names of Shrimatis Narinder Kaur, Krishna Kumari and Sumitra Devi were included with effect from June 2, 1971. Feeling aggrieved by the non-inclusion of her name in promotion list 'D' she filed this writ petition, on August 2,1971, for getting quashed the Standing Order and the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration) dated June 4,1971. (2) The writ petition was placed for hearing before one of us. As the matter involved was of some general importance it was referred to a larger Bench...
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. an Existing Co. Vs. the Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT413; [1973]88ITR21(Delhi)
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) This order of mine will dispose of C. W. 996 and 997 of 1971. (2) By consent the facts in C. W. 996 of 1971 were referred to and it was conceded that the result in C. W. 997 of 1971 will be governed by judgment in this case. (3) The scope and extent of the power of the Income-tax Officer under Section 3(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) is the question that calls for determination in these writ petitions. (4) The petitioner (5) Section 2(9) of the Act defines the assessment year to mean the period of twelve months commencing on the 1st day of April every year. Tax is levied for each financial year commencing on the 31st April at the rate or rates prescribed under the Finance Act and is a charge on the total income of the financial year. The assessed has been given the option to choose his accounting year ending on any day within the preceding financial year as his previous year. But once he has exercised his option than by virtue of Sec...
Hari Kam Dhupar Vs. Rajinder Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi145; 9(1973)DLT142
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) An application 'in the prescribed manner' has to be filed under section 9(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) for fixation of standard renter for an increase of standard rent and under the proviso to section 14(1) of the Act for the recovery of possession of the premises from the tenant. Accordingly a composite Form A of application for all these three purposes has been prescribed in the Rules made under the Act. Only the relevant entries suited to the particular purpose of the application have to be filed by the applicant who is at liberty to strike out those entries which are not applicable. (2) The landlord Hari Ram Dhupar made an application against the tenants Rajinder Singh and Rattan Singh for their eviction under clause (b) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Act on the ground that they had sub-let the premises, This application was made on 17th December, 1968 using the prescribed composite form of application. The landlo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »