Delhi Court April 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.
Union of India Vs. Sis Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi53
ORDER1. This is a Revision under the Code of Civil Procedure against the decision of the Additional District Judge. Delhi, dated 24th August 1971 passed during the hearing of a reference under the land acquisition Act. 1894 where by the application for a reference under Section 18 of the Act was permitted to be amended. The facts of the case are little unusual because the original reference petition moved by the respondent Sis Ram to the Land Acquisition Collector has mentioned in the application filed No.38/1 was not included in the acquisition and thereforee no reference concerning the same could be made. While stating the situation and extent of the land involved in the reference under section 19(1) of the Act the Collector stated in the note that this land was not being included in the reference as it was not acquired. The reference itself was made by the Collector some time in 1969 and the application under Section 18 praying for a reference to the Land Acquisition Court was made ...
Krishan Lal Vs. Ramo Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi21; 8(1972)DLT509
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated the 6th of November, 1971, made by the Competent Authority under Act 96 of 1956, Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') whereby permission was granted to the respondent Tinder section 19 of the Act to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner. (2) The application preferred under section 19 of the Act sought permission to initiate proceedings for the petitioner's eviction from shop No. 5273, Ram Bhawan, Kohlapur Road, Subzimandi, Delhi, on the ground that the petitioner had caused substantial damage by raising unauthorised construction and that he had misused the tenanted premises. The petitioner contested the application and urged that he was a poor man and will create another slum if he were to be evicted. Section 19 of the Act is:- 19.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being ...
Agricultural Company Rampur Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi344; [1974]93ITR353(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The following two questions of law have arisen for decision in this reference:- '(I)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice under Section 34 was valid in law (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the service of the notice under Section 34 was valid in law ?'(2) These questions arose out of a consolidated order dated 6th August, 1966 in two appeals heard by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since a common statement of case was drawn in respect of both the assessment years, this judgment will dispose of both the questions. (3) The facts are that two limited companies, Raza Sugar Company Limited and Buland Sugar Company Limited Rampur entered into a partnership and formed an agricultural company in the name of Agricultural Company Rampur. The case relates to the last mentioned company which is the assessed in this case. (4) The assessed took on lease some lands from...
Bibo Devi and ors. Vs. Rattan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi699
S. Rangarajain, J. (1) The L. Rs. of the original plaintiff (Bulaqidass) are the appellants. Bulaqidass was one of the three sons of Joti Parshad, who died in 1918; the two other brothers of the plaintiff were Ballumal (who died in 1947) and Madho Parshad (who died in 1950) leaving no issue but only his widow Shanti DeVi, (who also died in 1956). The present suit was instituted by Bulaquidass with reference to the suit house in June, 1957 for effecting a partition and putting him in separate and exclusive possession of 2/3rd share on the footing that the plaintiff was in joint possession of the suit property along With defendants No. 1 and 2 (the sons of Ballumal). Bulaqidass died during the pendency of the suit after giving evidence and his L. Rs. were brought on record as supplementary plaintiffs; one of the sons of Bulaqidass (0m Prakash) was imp leaded as a third defendant. A specific allegation was made in the plaint that even though the suit house had not been partitioned by mete...
Prifam Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1621; 8(1972)DLT205
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The appellant Pritam Singh has filed this appeal against his conviction un ler section 304, Part 1, I. P. C. and against the sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment passed against him. (2) The appellant along with three other persons, namely, Ranjit Singh alias Jita, Mmgat Ram and Kishan Lal, was prosecuted in the Court of the Additional Session Judge, Delhi, for an offence under ssc- corporation 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code The prosecution case a^ai.ist them was that they as well as the deceased Shiv Charan were residents of Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. On 24th March, 1971 in the evening. Rani, daughter of Babu Lal brother of the deceased, agei about 14 years, was sweeping the open space outside her house when the appellant and his brother Jita, who were present outside their house at that time, made some indecent remarks to the girl. Those remarks were heard by her brother 0m Prakash and he reprimanded the appellant and Jita for making su...
Kewal Krishan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT443
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff against the appellate order of the Senior Subordinate Judge Delhi dated 18th August, 1969 by which he had dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff' and thereby affirmed the order of the court of first instance dated 6th May, 1969 finally maltaining the dismissal of the application of the plaintiff for grant of adinterim Injunction. (2) The plaintiff instituted a suit giving rise to the revision on 4th June, 1968 on the allegations that he was a refuse from West Pakistan and had heen carrying on the trade of Auto Insurance business since 1948 by squatting on the footpath opposite the office of the Transport Authority on Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, but in 1950 when the Authority shifted lts office to Underhill Road, the plaintiff also shifted his place of business and shifted on the footpath at that place. The plaintiff alleged that in 1966, the Municipal Corporatio...
Ali Ahmed Vs. Roshan Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi93; 8(1972)DLT429
S.N. Andley, J. (1) A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the regular second appeal which was decided by Khanna J. on March, 22, 1971 and it is, thereforee, urged that this letters patent apppeal is also not competent. (2) The respondent landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant under section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' on grounds of non-payment of rent ; mis-user of the premises and damage to the property. This suit was filed in the civil Court having jurisdiction. The suit was compromised on May 9, 1958 and a decree for ejectment was passed in favor of the respondent and against the appellant. The condition of the decree was that if the appellant paid Rs. 300.00 in full and final settlement up to July 1, 1958, the decree for ejectment shall be deemed to have been satisfied. The appellant did not make payment in accordance with the compromise or the decree. The respondent took out ex...
Gokul Chand D. Morarka and anr. Vs. Company Law Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1972
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas173(Delhi); ILR1972Delhi369B
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Company Appeals Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1972 also. These appeals are against the common orders of the learned Company Judge of this Court dated 7th January, 1972 and 12th January, 1972, the Fatter flowing from the former. The facts leading to these appeals may be briefly noticed : (2) The Ganesh Flour Mil's Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) had its registered office in Delhi with an authorised capital of Rupees two crores divided into equity and preference shares. The issued capital was Rs. 1,02,01,925.00 out of which the subscribed and fully paid up capital was Rs. 99,42,333.00. The Company has two vanaspati manufacturing units, one in Delhi and the other at Kanpur; an electric fan plant and a P'ood Products Plant, both at Delhi; a Solvent Extraction Plant at Bombay and a Vegetable Products Factory and Flour Mill in West Pakistan. Except the Vegetable Ghee Plant at Kanpur, which is still running, the o'her factories of the ...
P.C. Gulati Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi569; [1972]86ITR501(Delhi)
Dalip K. Kapur, J.(1) The question which we are called upon to answer in the reference has been framed by the Tribunal in the following terms:- 'WHETHER,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sale of Electrical Undertaking to the Punjab Government falls in the assessment year 1955-56 when the Undertaking was taken over by the Punjab Government by virtue of an option which was exercised in terms of the license or whether it falls in the assessment year 1963-64 when the balance of the sale price was received by the assessed ?'(2) The Panipat Electric Supply Co. Ltd., which is the assessed in this case, obtained a license to generate and distribute electricity in Panipat on 20th July, 1934. The license was for fifteen years but was renewed for a period of five years. In terms of clause 9 of the license the Government of Punjab had an option to purchase the Electrical Undertaking belonging to the assessed at the expiry of the period of the license under the provisions of Se...
Delhi Transport Undertaking and anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi281; 8(1972)DLT188
V.D. Misra, J. (1) Whether cross-objections are maintainable in a case where an appeal has been preferred under an Act which does not speifically provide for the filing of cross-objetion' is the main question which has arisen for decision in the two appeals-F.A.O. No. 239-D of 1964 and F.A.O. No. 37 of 1971, which are being decided by this. judgment. (2) The facts relating to F.A.O. No. 239-D of 1964 in brief are that Kumari Lalita was run over by a D.T.U. bus on 6-12-1961 and received serious injuries. According to the doctors, she was permanently dissabled. She filed a claim for Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Delhi Transport Undertaking. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 to her. The Delhi Transport Undertaking filed the present appeal against the award. Kumari Lalita filed cross-objections and asked for enhanacement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. During the course of arguments, Mr. R. L. Tandon, learned counsel for the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »