Delhi Court February 1972 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1972 Page 3 of about 30 results (0.021 seconds)Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bhagwan Dass
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1433; 8(1972)DLT246
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment by which Shri Bhagwan Dass has been acquitted by an Additional Sessions Judge. Two persons, namely, Shri Kasturi Lal and Shri Bhagwan Dass were tried by a Magistrate 1st Class for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Each of them was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine each was to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. (2) On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction of Shri Kasturi Lal but acquitted Shri Bhagwan Dass. The sentence of Shri Kasturi Lal was also reduced to imprisonment for a period of two months and to a fine of Rs. 500.00. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half months. (3) Against the judgment of acquittal in ...
Tag this Judgment!Phiraya Lal Alias Piara Lal and anr. Vs. Jia Rani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi186
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) A large plot of land measuring 1304 square yards was leased out by the Delhi Improvement Trust at the rate of Rs. 5 per 100 square yards per month to Messrs. Shanti Parkash Bishan Singh in 1944. The lessees between themselves seem to have divided the plot and occupied separate halves of it. The lease was cancelled in 1944. A suit for ejectment and recovery of arerars of rent was filed by the Improvement Trust against Shanti Parkash and Bishan Singh and was decreed on 29-5-1946. The decree for ejectment was not, however, actually executed and the judgment debtors continued in actual possession. Shanti Parkash died on 12-5-1950. Jia Rani. his daughter was his legal representative. Out of the land in the possession of Shanti Parkash some area was in the possession of one Ladha Ram. After the death of Shanti Parkash, Jia Rani brought Suit No. 162 of 1951 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against Ladha Ram on the basis of tenancy. That suit was, however, di...
Tag this Judgment!Uggar Sen Kashyap Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi256; 9(1973)DLT59
Dalip K. Kapur, J.(1) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned with the acquisition of certain land situated in village Shakurpur and also in village Mandawli Fazalpur, Delhi, of which the petitioner is the Bhumidar. On 13th November, 1959, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued, a copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which were heard on 26th September, 1962 Thereafter, certain notifications under Section 6 of the Act were issued and later on notices under Sections 9 and 10. Thereafter two separate awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector which covered the petitioner's land.(2) Part of the petitioner's land is covered by award No. 2179 which is Annexure 'E' to the Petition and the rest by award No. 7 of 1969. One of the contentions of the petitioner before me is that his land which has been acquired by t...
Tag this Judgment!Hoshiar Singh Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi260
ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been instituted in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order passed under the provisions of Delhi Land Holdings (ceiling) Act, 1960. For convenience, it is necessary to mention that under the provisions of the Act, a person together with his family cannot hold land in excess of 30 standard acres, but in the case of a family whose members exceed, that family is entitled to 5 additional standard acres for each member in excess of five. It is the admitted case between the parties that the petitioner is entitled to retain 45 standard acres. Under Section 4 of the Act, every person holding land in excess of the ceiling is required to submit a return within 90 days of the commencement of the Act indicating the parcels of land not exceeding the limit which he desires to retain. Thus, within 90 days of the commencement of the Act, the petitioner could have submitted a return specifying the 45 standard acres that he could reta...
Tag this Judgment!National Seeds Corporation Employee's Union and Anr. Vs. National Seed ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi292; 9(1973)DLT89b; (1973)ILLJ254Del
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by two petitioners, namely, The National Seeds Corporation Employees' Union through its General Secretary and Shri J. P. Singh, the General Secretary of the first petitioner against the National Seeds Corporation, F-44/A, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi through its Chairman. By this petition a prayer is made for the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondent-corporation directing it to restore the enhanced house-rent allowance which the employees of the respondent were getting by virtue of a resolution passed at the 45th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent-corporation on 27th September, 1971. The benefit of the enhanced houserent allowance was made applicable to the employees of the respondent w.e.f. 1st October, 1971. This order was revoked by an office order No. 741 (Part-I) issued on 1st January, 1972. Aggrieved by the said order of revocation the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Bhargava Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi130; [1973]88ITR14(Delhi)
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The following questions of law have, under directions of the High Court dated 26th July, 1966, been referred to this Court for opinion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, namely:- '1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the- Tribunal could hold that a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 being the face value of three hundred fully paid-up shares of Messrs. Delhi Gate Service Private Limited, was not capital but revenue receipt in the hands of the petitioner liable to tax ? 2.Even if it be held that the aforesaid amount represented revenue receipt, could the Tribunal in law hold that the entire face value of the shares constituted revenue receipt which was assessable to tax ?' The facts giving rise to the questions, as given in the statement of case, are that the assessed negotiated with Caltex (India) Limited for appointment as Petrol Dealer for the service station erected by Caltex outside Delhi Gate. The dealership when secured was transferred to a priv...
Tag this Judgment!Lajwanti Vs. Baleshwar Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi874B
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The parties are displaced persons who migrated to India from West Pakistan in the wake of the partition of the country. The respondents are sons of the deceased Harcharan Singh who was the son of the deceased Kesri Singh, Raja of Sheikhupura in the undivided Punjab now part of West Pakistan. It is admitted by the respondents that the appellant was a keep of the late Raja Kesri Singh. The appellant, however, contends that she was legally married to Kesri Singh. Kesri Singh died in or about 1935 and his son Harcharan Singh also died in or about 1936. Their estate was, thereforee, taken over by the Court of Wards as the respondents were then minors. The court of Wards granted Rs. 100.00 per month as maintenance to the appellant. This went on till shortly before the partition of the country. The parties then came over to India. A sum of Rs. 10,74,000.00 out of the profits of the estate was in deposit with the Court of Wards, Lahore. This deposit was transferred to Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs. Allahawal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi288
1. This regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the Union of India and the Custodian of Evacuee's property defendants and is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of Shri R.N. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 27th April, 1966 by which the learned Judge allowed the appeal and reversing the decree of the trial Court dated 6th September, 1963 finally decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for a declaration that the notification notifying the property in dispute as the evacuee property was illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 8th of May, 1929 Abdul Caffar and Allahawala purchased the property in dispute by a sale-deed (Exhibit P-2) and after the purchased, they, on 29th September, 1931, divided the property between them by a released-deed and sale-deed, with the result that Abdul Gaffar became the owner of property No. 37-A (corresponding to new No. 54) while Allahawal...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Vs. Knitting Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi37; ILR1972Delhi677
Hardayal Hardy, C.J.(1) These are two appeals viz. Fao (OS) 28 of 1971 and FAO(OS) 29 of 1971, against an order made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. As both these cases were decided by the same judgment two separate appeals have been filed by Shri Krishan Kumar who was respondent No. 4 before the learned Single Judge and is appellant before us.(2) The facts are not in dispute. By an instrument of partnership dated 1st April 1967, a partnership firm in the name of Beli Ram Vinod Kumar was constituted. Smt. Kamla Kapur, Shri Vinod Kumar and Shri Sat Pal Mehra were the three partners each having a share of 25 per cent, 25 per cent and 50 per cent. The firm Beliram Vinod Kumar had some dealings with two other firms, namely, Messrs Knitting Industries and Sudershan Sewa Trust. Both these firms belong to Amritsar and claim money to be due to them by the firm Beliram Vinod Kumar. Eventually on 25-10-1967 an agreement referring the disputes to arbitration was executed by these two fir...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Samouel Wallace Vs. the Regional Passort Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT433
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) In Satwant Singh Sawhney V. D. Ramarathnam, : [1967]3SCR525 the majority of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that right to travel abroad was a part of 'personal liberty' and as such a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. It could, thereforee, be regulated only 'according to procedure established by law' there under and not by mere executive discretion and further the exercise of executive discretion was also vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Parliament thereupon enacted the Passports Act, 1967 (No. 15 of 1967) (hereinafter called the Act) to establish the procedure under which passports may be granted or refused to applicants by the Central Government. Under section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport on the ground 'that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India'. (2) The application o...
Tag this Judgment!