Delhi Court September 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.
Harbans Motor Stores and ors. Vs. the Sales Tax Commissioner and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi341
Dalip K. Kapur, J. (1) The petitioners have instituted three Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in connection with the imposition of sales tax on old or second hand motor tyres and tubes which were by petitioner No. 1. The numbers of the Petitions are Civil Writ No. 1324 of 1969, No. 285 of 1970 and Civil Writ No. 323 of 197 Other petitions by other parties involving similar points to the points raised by the petitioner have been heard along with these Writ Petitions. The main judgment is being delivered in Civil Writ No. 1324 of 1969 brought by the petitioner, in the course of this judgment, I shall also deal with the points raised in Writ Petitions Nos. 285 of 1970 and 323 of 1971, aforementioned. The main challenge in the present Writ Petition is against the assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. V, Delhi, on 29th September- 1969. By this order, which relates to the assessment year 1967-68, the Sales Tax Officer rejected the claim of th...
Ajudhia Textile Mills Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR182
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner (Ajudhia Texlile Mills Ltd.) has, in this Writ Petition, prayed that the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (Respondent No. 4), issued between 28.6.1963 and 31.10.1963 (copies of which are Annexures B. 1 to B. 4 to this Petition), demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 33,174.99 as damages under section. 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, should be quashed as being illegal. Admittedly, the petitioner had not paid within the requisite time the employers' contribution for provident fund. The details of the amounts due by way of contribution from the petitioner have been mentioned in the statement of amounts appended to the Writ Petition and these are not in controversy. The extent of delay in respect of making each of those payments have also been shown in the said statement of amounts and about this also there is no controversy. The impugned demands are for damages which were assessed by the Regional Provident Fund Comm...
Subhash Chander Vs. Rehmat Ullah
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi181; 1972RLR154
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) In these two appeals (S.A.OS. Nos. 150 and 151 of 1971) certain questions have arisen under the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 which Mr. Justice V. S. Deshpande has referred for consideration by a larger Bench. They are abstract questions of law and undoubtedly of general importance. Although there is nothing special or unusual in the facts which might affect the result, we will state them so far as they are relevant to provide a backdrop for the discussion. (2) On 9th August 1967, the appellant Subhash Chander (the landlord) commenced proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 for evicting the respondent Rehmatullah Khan (the tenant) from premises located in Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Twice, personal service was sought to be effected on the respondent. On both occasions the process server reported that he found the premises locked and was unable to trace the respondent . So, on 17th October 1967 the Additional Rent Controller, before whom the proceedin...
Ram Sarup and anr. Vs. Raj Dulari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi23
1. In their written statement dated November 2. 1965, filed in reply to an eviction petition of Raj Dulari respondent landlady, the appellant tenants made a prayer for fixation of standard rent under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called 'the Act', for the premises in dispute, which had been taken on rent in 1958. An application under Section 15(2) of the Act was filed by the landlady for directions to the appellants for deposit of arrears of rent due from February 1. 1962 at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month. On March 15. 1963 the Additional Controller fixed Rs. 125/- per month as the interim rent, under Section 15(3) of the Act and directed the arrears and future rent to be, paid at that rate, the eviction petition however, was dismissed in default on February 6, 1965. In the meantime, the appellant tenants had deposited with the Additional Controller from time to time a sum of Rs.4, 500/- in all. The appellants filed an application before the Additional Controller on June 4....
Raj Nath Vs. Vijay Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi244; ILR1973Delhi272
Avadh Behari, J. (1) This is a first appeal from the order of a learned single Judge dated May 26, 1972, refusing to extend the time on the application of the appellant (I.A. I of 1972 dated January 3, 1972 which was made under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the court. The material facts so far as they are relevant for the decision of this appeal are as follows :- ONE Musadi Lal had five sons, namely, Shiv Charan Lal, Lakshmi Narain, Dina Nath, Raj Nath and Vijay Nath. He constituted a joint Hindu family with his sons and carried on business under the name and style 'Premsukhdass Jawaharlal'. He died in 1942. In 1949 his sons who continued the business of the joint Hindu family firm converted the same into partnership. At that time three elder sons became partners and the appellant and the respondent who were then minors were admitted to the benefit of the partnership. A new deed of partnership dated March 19, 1950 was executed in which the appellant became a pa...
Eagle theatres and ors. Vs. R.K. Baweja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi675
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Censtitution of India is brought against an order of the 15th December 1971 made by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, presided over by Mr. R.K. Baweja. (2) There is a firm called Eagle Theatres which carries on business as exhibitors and owns and runs the Plaza Cinema in Connaught Circus, New Delhi. We will refer to it as the 'employers'. By an order dated 15th July 1971, the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, referred an industrial dispute between the employers and their employees to the Tribunal. The terms of reference were: 'WHETHERthe workmen are entitled to any additional bonus for the year 1968-69 and, if so, what directions are necessary in this respect'(3) In the proceedings which followed, the Tribunal made an ordef rejecting certain preliminary objections to the reference taken by the employers. That is the order which this petition impugns. Before us, the same points were canvassed as before the Tribunal, and we pro...
Amrit Banaspati Company Limited Vs. the Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi237
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This writ Petition has been filed by Ami-it Banaspati Company Limited praying for a declaration that the provision in section 178 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act No. 66 of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation Act'), for levy of terminal tax is ultra virus the Constitution of India, and for the issuance of a writ of prohibitation or other suitable writ or direction directing the respondents to forbear from Realizing any terminal tax from the petitioner under the provision in the said section. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 2,95,396.01 which was alleged to have been realised by the respondents as terminal tax from the petitioner. The respondents are (1) The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs ; (2) The Lt. Governor, Delhi ; (3) The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi ; and (4) The Delhi Terminal Tax Agency. (2) The petitioner-company was incorporated under...
Rajinder Pershad Vs. Suraj Mal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi164
1. This judgment will dispose of three second appeals: S. A. Os. 228, 229 and 230 of 1971, filed by the landlord. Rajinder Pershad and directed against the order dated June 1. 1971 of the Rent Control Tribunal, by which accepting the three appeals of the tenants, it set aside three separate orders passed by the Additional Controller. one under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control l Act'. 1958, herein called `the Act'. directing payment of rent. the other under Section 15(7) striking out the tenant's defense. and the third under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. ordering eviction of the tenants.2. The appellant landlord, filed an application under Section 14 of the Act for the eviction of the respondent-tenants from the premises in dispute on the ground that they had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent due at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month for the period from July 14. 1965 within two months of the service of notice of demand. The respondents pleaded that in the year 1961, a port...
Jagjot Singh Vs. Hafiz Mohd. Said and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi656
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This order will dispose of an application C.M. 415/72 made by the plaintiff Hafiz Mohd. Said under Order 22, Rules 4 and 11 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for an order that the Regular First Appeal No. 135-D of 1960 has abated and it be dismissed as not competent. The relevant facts for the decision of the application are: the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants Jagjot Singh and 23 others for their ejectment from the premises described as Municipal No. X/1337 known as 'National Cloth Market' situate at Bazar Chiti Qabar, Ward No. X, Delhi. The suit was founded on the allegations that the plaintiff had by an agreement dated 8th June, 1951 leased out to defendants No. 1 and 2, 17 shops known as 'National Cloth Market' at a rent of Rs. 300.00 per month for a period of three years. Defendants I and 2 were given permission to sublet part of the premises to other cloth merchants, that defendants no. I and 2 had sublet the premises to the tenants det...
G.L. Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander Nijhawan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi129a
1. In this application filed under Order 41 Rule 2 areas with Section 515 C.P.C. the applicant has prayed that be permitted to add the following ground as ground No. 26 to the grounds taken by him in his memorandum of appeal:--'Because Shri Ramesh Chander Nijhawan was for unsound mind and by the reasons of unsoundness of mind and mental infirmity and incapable of the suing and protecting his interest when suing and protecting his interest when suing without the appointment of a next friend and such the order D- 30-11-70 passed by Shri K. B. Andley Additional Rent Controller is a nullity and of no force and effect'. 2. It is further and by the applicant that he be permitted to adduce evidence in support of the contention raised in ground of the appeal proposed to be added by this application.3. The respondent has opposed this application stating the same is not maintainable in that the question sought to be raised being one of fact involving production of the additional evidence on disp...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »