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.
Banwarilal and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi24; 8(1972)DLT285
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The appellant's building was requisitioned by the Government under section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and a sum of Rs. 3212.50 was offered to the appellant as compensation per month for the use of the building. As the appellant did not agree to accept the said amount, the compensation payable to the appellant was determined by Shri G. R. Luthra (Judge, Small Causes Court, Delhi) acting as arbitrator under section 8 of the Act at Rs. 4,658.00 per month. In the appeal against the award of the arbitrator, V. D. Misra, J. of this Court increased' the amount of compensation to Rs. 6,423.00 per month under section 11 of the Act. The Government was also ordered to spend a sum of Rs. 6,423.00 per year for the maintenance and repairs of the building.(2) Limitation for a further appeal was as follows: -(A)Appeal to a Division Bench of this Court under clause 10 of the Letters Patent - 30 days; and (b) Appeal to the Supreme Court ...
Nirmal Jerath and ors. Vs. Sadhu Ram Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi55; 8(1972)DLT465
Dalip K. Kapur, J. (1) This is an appeal against a decision of the Rent Control Tribunal passed in appeal against an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellants are (1) Shrimali Nirmal Jerath, (2) Rajeev Jerath, minor son of Shrimati Nirmal Jeraih, and (3) Shrimati Gian Devi, widow of Madan Gopal Jerath, and the premises are situated in House No. 34-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. In the ejectment application, out of which this appeal has arisen, the appellants were the applicants and Shrimati Shakuntala Jerath was joined as one of the respondents. The facts of the case show that the properly qua which ejectment was sought was let out by the late Sham Sunder Jerath to the tenants. After his death his mother, Shrimati Gian Devi, Shrimati Nirmal Jerath and his minor son Rajeev Jerath instituted this ejectment petition. The other widow did not join them and was imp leaded as a respondent. The ejectment application was moved on various grounds including the non-pay...
Hanuman Oil Mills and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi51
Prakash Narain, J.1. On an award dated the 6th October, 1961 given by Shri G.S. Gaitonde in a reference of disputes to him between M/s Hanuman Oil Mills and the Union of India under an alleged Arbitration agreement between parties contained in the General Conditions of Contract governing A/T No. A 3/23/58 dated the 31st October, 1958 , the Union of India on November 4, 1961, moved an application under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the court of Shri N.C.Gupta, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi for the filing of the said award, making it a rule of the court and passing a decree in terms thereof. Notice of this application was issued to M/s. Hanuman Oil Mills and its three alleged partners and Shri G.S Gaitonde was called upon to file the award in court. After the same was filed in court notice of the filing of the award was given to the parties, M/s Hanuman Oil Mills filed two sets of objection against the said award, one being dated the 30th April, 1962 and the other It May...
Delhi Financial Corporation Vs. Ram Pershad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi28
1. The appellant is the Delhi Financial Corporation incorporated under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The appellant filed an application in the Court of District Judge, Delhi under Section 31 of the Act for the recovery of Rs.1,89,376.92 paise from the respondent herein Shri Ram Prashad, the sole proprietor of Delhi Steel and Foundry Works, Delhi. According to the averments in this application the Punjab Financial Corporation has advanced a loan of Rs. 1,50.000/- to the respondent under a mortgage a deed dated 22nd April 1963 and that the said Corporation has advanced a further loan of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent under the mortgage deed dated 7th December, 1964.. The respondent has hypothecated certain properties belonging to him by way of security for the said loans. The loans were repayable with interest by Installments which were specified in the mortgage deeds. Under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the appellant took over all...
Harisingh Anand Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi216; 8(1972)DLT368
Hardaya Hardy, C.J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises out of a Judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ No. 149-D of 1963, whereby the petition filed by the appellant who was petitioner in that case, was dismissed. 2. The question arising for determination in this appeal relates to Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 which will hereafter be called the Rules.3. The contention urged by the appellant is that the rule has not been correctly interpreted by the learned Single Judge and that on a true construction of Rule 30 the appellant alone is entitled to the transfer of the entire property.4. The facts lie in a small compass. Quarter No. 6/82 in Rajinder Nagar is a Government built property which was occupied by the appellant and respondent No. 5 Mohar Singh. It was transferred to respondent No. 5 and its cost was adjusted against a claim payable to Shri Gulab Singh father of respondent No...
Narinder Singh Dhingra Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi583; [1973]90ITR110(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, C.J.(1) The following question of law has been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal' (Delhi Bench 'A') arising out of its order dated 20-7-1966. (2) Whether the Tribunal having held that the order of assessment for the year 1961-62 made under S. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid, could restore the case to the file of the Income-tax Officer and direct him to proceed from the return stage and make fresh assessment according to law under the Income-tax Act, 1922?' (3) The applicant Shri Narinder Singh Dhingra is assessed as Hindu un-divided family as its Karta. The Hindu un-divided family is a partner in various partnership concerns and has also interest income from deposits and is als (4) On 8-3-1962 the family filed return of income before the Income-tax Officer. A separate return was filed by Shri Narinder Singh in the status of an individual declaring income of Rs. 19,002.00 being income from remuneration received by him as Director ...
Tula Ram Vs. B.K. Aswani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT482
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) This is an appeal by the landlord Shri Tula Ram under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The application for eviction in the present case was on the ground of non-payment of rent under section 14(1)(a) of the said Act. Arrears of rent had been claimed with effect from 1st January, 1964, at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month. A notice of demand dated 4th August, 1964 was served on the tenant, Shri B. K. Aswani. According to the the landlord, this was acase of second default an J, hence no order under section 15(1) of the Act was passed. It was claimed by the landlond that in a previous case the tenant had already taken the benefit of making a deposit under section 15(1) of the Act and consequently failure to pay the rent in response to the notice of demand eatitled the landord to a decree for ejectment. This case was accepted by the Additional Rent Controller, who ordered the tenant's ejectment by the order dated 27th March, 1967. (2) The tenant appealed to...
Mangal Dass Sant Ram Gauba Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi96
1. This Civil Revision has been file by Mangal Dass plaintiff in Suit No. p-3 1969 on the file of Shri Harikrishan Singh Malik, subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 11th October 1971, dismissing an application for amendment of the paint filed by the petitioner herein.2. The petitioner was employed as Head Constable in the Delhi Police Force. Department proceedings were instituted against him on the basis of some complaint. Ultimately he was dismissed form service. He thereupon filed the suit out of which this Civil Revision has arisen for a declaration that the order of his dismissal was illegal, without jurisdiction and against the mandatory provisions of law. He also prayed for areas of salary and allowance etc., from the date of dismissal. The suit was institution by him inform a paupers and he was adjudged as a pauper.3. Subsequently he filed an application on 18th May, 1971 seeking permission to amend his plaint by adding a pa...
Bhoop Singh Vs. Bhori Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi245
ORDER1. This Civil Revision has been filed by Bhoop Singh, defendant in Suit No. 1123 of 1967, on the file of Shri Jagdish Chandra, Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi against the judgment and decree of the learned judge dated 1st May, 1968, decreeing the said suit for Rs.200/- against him.2. The respondent herein, Bhori Lalm filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner herein for recovery of Rs.200/- made up of Rs.80/- on account of arrears of rent for 8 months @ Rs.10/- per month for the period 1st March, 1967, to 31st October, 1967, and Rs.120/- on account of damages at the rate of Rs.15/- per month for 8 months, viz., form 10th, March, 1967, to 10th November, 1967. The respondent alleged in his plaint that the petitioner herein was his tenant in respect of one room on the first floor of his house at a monthly rent of Rs.10/-, and that the petitioner had also been using illegally the roof on the first floor which was not in his tenancy for which the aforesaid damages had been claimed...
Abrar HussaIn and Am. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1972
Reported in: 1972RLR133
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) Afaq Hussain, second respondent herein, filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, against the petitioners alleging that they had committed an offence under section 365 read with section 34 IPC. Accor- ding to the complainant, he had married the daughter of the second petitioner herein in 1968 and that after the marriage, the relations between him and his wife had become strained and that hi? wife had left him and was living with her father. On 6.5.1968 at about 8.15 A.M. when the complainant was going to his office, the first petitioner who was a relation of his wife, had met him and told him that the condition of his wife was very serious and that he should go immediately to village Tanda Badli, District Rampur, U.P. where his wife was lying ill. The complainant thereupon went along with the first petitioner to that village and was taken to the house of the second petitioner where he was wrongfully confined till 12.5.1968, On 10.5.1968, the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »