Delhi Court July 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.
Anwer Raza Rizvi Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi799
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The selection and appointment of Mohammad Rehmat Ali (respondent No. 6) as Reader in Economics in the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'the Jamia', is challenged by the two petitioners in writ petitions Nos. 7 and 20 of 1972. Originally these two persons had jointly filed Civil Writ No. 7 of 1972 but on January 5, 1972, their counsel wa.s 'directed to file a separate petition in respect of petitioner No. 2 Mohammad Sultan' who then filed Civil Writ No. 20 of 1972. (2) The petitioners in Civil Writ No. 1050 of 1971 have challenged the selection and appointment of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as Readers in Education. (3) Some common questions of law arise in these petitions and. thereforee, they are being disposed of by this judgment. We will first deal with Civil Writs Nos. 7 and' 20 of 1972. Civil Writs Nos. 7 and 20 of 1972. (4) Both petitioners and respondent No. 6 were, until the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 as Reader in Ec...
National Research Development Corporation of India Vs. Bhupal Mining W ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT37
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is defendants' application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) praying that suit No. 394 of 1971 which is pending in this court be stayed.(2) The plaintiff-corporation has filed a suit against defendant No. 1, a firm and its partners defendants 2 and 3. It is alleged that the plaintiff has been in possession of and entitled to full rights to an invention covered by the Indian Patent No. 48667 relating to manufacture of mica insulating bricks and allied products. The defendants approached the plaintiff for use of the said patent and invention and, by an agreement dated 20th February, 1957, the plaintiff granted a license to the defendants to use the said invention relating to the process of manufacture of mica insulating bricks and allied products in their own factory at Bhilwara In terms of the said agreement the defendants have to pay to the plaintiff royalty at the rate of 2'% on the net ex-factory sale price for each...
Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava (Decd., by His Legal Representatives) Vs. Unio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR312(Delhi)
Avadh Behari, J.1. The facts in this case are simple and undisputed. The plaintiffs have instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,29,640.98 against the Union of India. In brief, the allegations of the plaintiffs are that they formed a Hindu undivided family in respect of which assessment proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were taken for the year 1946-47. The assessment was made for the assessment year 1946-47 by the Income-tax Officer under the Income-tax Act and Excess Profits Tax Act some time in 1951. An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in 1952, and the order of the Income-tax Officer was partly varied and as a result the amount of tax was reduced. In March, 1955, the appeal of the plaintiffs to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed. In September, 1955, the income-tax department took coercive proceedings against the plaintiffs under Section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 and attached the immovable properties of th...
Om Parkash Gupta Vs. Banarsi Das Perhlad Rai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1972
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT72; 1972RLR123
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The only question involved in this second appeal is about the scope of section 15, of of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called 'the Act.' (2) Messrs Banarsi Dass Prahlad Rai, respondent No. 1 was a partnership firm cosisting of two partners, viz. Prahlad Rai and Mool Chand. Certain premises in property No. 5066, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi were under the tenancy of the said firm. The partners could not pull on together and they partitioned the premises. Portion shown as red in the plan attached to the eviction petition fell to the share of Prahlad Rai, who continued to carry on his business in the said firm name of Banarsi Dass, Prahlad Rai, as its sole proprietor ; while the remaining portion of the tenanted premises fell to the share of Mool Chand, father of 0m Parkash Gupta, the appellant. The partners also agreed to share amongst themselves the rent of the Premises. Accordingly respondent No. 1 started paying rent for his portion at the rate of Rs.56/...
Kailash Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1021
M.R.A. Ansari, J.1. A challan was filed against the petitioner in the Court of the Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, for an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The Prosecution case against the petitioner was that he, being a citizen of India, printed certain pamphlets and sent them to various foreign countries including Malaya. In these pamphlets, the petitioner represented that valuable gifts like cinema projectors, jewels etc., would be given to winners of lucky tickets and persons were invited to purchase the lucky tickets by sending postal orders. Some of these pamphlets were received by the two residents of Malaya by name Oath-man and Abdul Bin Haji Ran. Acting upon these representations, these two persons purchased postal orders of 140 Malayan dollars each and sent them to the petitioner. These postal orders were actually received by the petitioner and were encased by him. No presents were, however, sent to these two persons and it was discovered that the whole scheme was a ...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi42
1. This second appeal by the Union of India appellant No. 1 and the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, appellant No. 2, is directed against the judgment dated November, 19, 1968, of the Additional district Judge. Delhi, by which he dismissed their appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, decreeing the respondent's suit against them.2. The respondent-society is a Co-operative Housing Society with one of its objects being to acquire land for housing schemes. It purchased the land in suit and spent some money in developing the same. On March 8, 1957 the Chief commissioner, Delhi. Appellant No. 2, issued three notifications under Section 4, 6 and 17, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, herein called 'The Act' in respect of a portion of the respondent's land. Other notifications under the same sections of the Act were again issued on September 10,1957 in respect of some other portion of the said land; and notifications under the said three sections of the ...
Padma Kaur Vs. O.P. Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1972
Reported in: 1972RLR121
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) Appellant sued respondent for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent etc. claiming non-payment from 1.4.1970 and rate of re to be Rs. 150.00. Respondent pleaded that rate of rent was Rs. 140.00 as after disconnection of. water supply he obtained independent connection and rent was fixed at Rs. 140.00 and he had paid at that rate rent for March and April, 1972. He also pleaded that he sent cash order for May and June, 1970 on 15.7.72 and then 2 cash orders as rent for 4 months. Appellant denied receipt of first. She did not accept the other two. The Rent Controller ordered deposit of rent U/S 15(1) but the Tribunal in appeal set aside this order. Landlady appealed to High Court.] para 5 onwards the judgment is:- (2) This sub-section, thereforee, comes into play whenever proceedings are filed for the recovery of possession of any premises, on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act The question as to whether...
D.C. Goel and ors. Vs. B.L. Verma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR63(Delhi)
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.1. These seven petitions being Criminal Revisions Nos. 49 to 55 of 1971, which this order will dispose of, result from the recommendation made by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, on 18th July, 1971, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the sentences awarded to the respondents be enhanced so as to make them in conformity with the provisions of Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ' the Act ').2. There are distinguishing features, which will be noticed, but the common contentions raised in these matters deserve to be dealt with in one place.3. The first of these petitions, i.e., Criminal Revision No. 49 of 1971, arises out of a complaint dated the 31st of March, 1970, preferred under Sections 276(d)/276B read with Sections 192(1) and 200 of the Act in which Shri D. C. Goel, Income-tax Officer, figured as the complainant and the accused were Messrs. Gurdas Kapur and Sons (Private) Ltd. and Shri B. L. Verma, who was descri...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›