Delhi Court October 1973 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.
Gurcharan Singe Vs. Ram Kaur Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR142
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) Respondent 1 applied to Respondent 2 for permission U/S 19 to sue the petitioner. Latter claimed that his wife and mother were living at Noor Mahal and he is maintaining two establishments and his income is thus not enougn. Respondent 1 replied this by saying that petitioner had deserted his wife Petitioner repudiated this in an application along-with an affidavit and wanted the Authority to take on record the said application and also the affidavit 'and also aliow him to crossexamine the landlady but these prayers were rejected and he moved High Court U/Art. 227 of the Constitution. Para 4 onwards the judgment is :- At The reasons given by the Competent Authority in the impugned order are that the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas Act does not function as a Court and, thereforee, the provisions of Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C., are inapplicable to the proceedings before it. that the proceedings under section 19 of the Slum Areas Act are of a sum...
Gurcharan Singh Vs. Ram Kaur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi36
ORDER1. This petition. C. M. (Main) 20 of 1973 has been filed by Sardar Gurcharan Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondents are (1) Shrimati Ram Kaur and (2) Shri H. C. Arora, who is the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act).2. Respondent 1 is the owner of a house at Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur. The Petitioner is the tenant in respect of two rooms, a verandah and a kitchen with common bathroom and latrine on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- per month. Respondent 1 applied to Respondent 2 on February 10, 1971 under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act for permission to institute proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the aforesaid tenancy premises on the ground that the said premises was required bona fide by her for occupation as residence by herself. The petitioner contested the application inter alias denying the factor of the alleged bona fid...
Bal Kishan Gupta Vs. Ramadhar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi856
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The defendant is the appellant against whom the learned Subordinate Judge (Shri M. L. Mirchia) decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 4,700 with proportionate costs. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of Rs. 5,500 on the allegation that he gave a cheque for Rs. 4,700 to the defendant/appellant on 10-3-1959 as a loan bearing interest at Rs. 6 per cent per annum. The appellant who admittedly encased that cheque did not repay the loan. (2) The present suit was filed on 9-3-1962, on the eve of limitation. The defendant, who was working under the plaintiff, admitted that he encased the cheque but pleaded that he handed over the money so drawn to the plaintiff on that very day. The plaintiff filed a reply statement making a distinction between self-cheques and those drawn by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant; while the latter were given for the benefit of the defendant by way of advance, the former were for the plain...
Sardar Gurcharan Singh Vs. Ram Kaur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi566
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This petition, C. M. (Main) 20 of 1973, has been filed by Sardar Gurcharan Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondents are (1) Shrimati Ram Kaur and (2) Shri H. C. Arora, who is the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act).(2) Respondent I is the owner of a house at Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of two rooms. a varandah and a kitchen with common bath room and latrine on a monthly rent of Rs. 70.00 per month. Respondent 1 applied to respondent 2 on February 10, 1971, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Slum Areas Act for permission to institute proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the aforesaid tenancy premises on the ground that the said premises was required bona fide by her for occupation as residence by herself. The petitioner contested the application, inter alia, denying the factum o...
Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR592(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. 1. These two income-tax references and the two income-tax cases are disposed of by a common judgment as the questions which arise for determination in all these cases are almost identical.2. In Income-tax Reference No. 46 of 1970, which relates to the assessment year 1956-57, the following question was referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1961') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the net dividend income of Rs. 2,30,832 received from a Pakistan company and the capital gains of Rs. 5,120 were not deductible in arriving at the total world loss under Section 24(1)?'3. In Income-tax Reference No. 52 of 1970, which relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the following question was referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Act of 1961 :'Wh...
Rakesh Kumur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR37
(1) This petition has come up in consequence of an order made on 27.7.73 by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in exercise of the jurisdiction provided by S. 438 of the Cr. P.C. whereby he has recommended that the order directing the framing of charge against the petitioner made by Sh. M.S. Rohilla. Judicial Magistrate on 29 3.73 be quashed. (2) The petitioner was one of the 4 persons against whim the trial Court framed the charge on the 2nd of May, 1973. (3) The prosecution allegations were that Rs. 2,940.00 were stolen from the shop of one Ram Avtar in East Punjabi Bagh Market. It was alleged that the petitioner was arrested on the 25th of May, 1971 and a transistor and a wrist watch were recovered from his possession. His statement was recorded on the basis of which the others were arrested. (4) I have gone through the petitioner's statement on which reliance was placed by the Magistrate for framing the charge. The prosecution urged that the entire statement enjoyed the protection of ...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Chet Ram Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR132
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) In this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has challenged the order of the learned single Judge partly accepting the writ petition of respondent No. 1, Chet Ram Vashisht; The learned single Judge held that the revised lay-out plan submitted by Chet Ram along with his application dated April 20, 1967 should be taken to have been approved by the Standing Committee of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, as the Standing Committee neither accorded sanction with condition or without condition within a period of sixty days as envisaged in sub-section (3) of section 313 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter called 'the Act') nor disallowed it or asked for further information in regard to it. (2) Respondent No. 1 is a coloniser. His father Amin Chand owned land measuring 12.77 acres in village Chowkhauui, near Tilak Nagar, Najafgarh Road New Delhi within the limits of the Corporation. Amin Chand submitted a lay-out plan in...
Prem D. Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR163
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) Against that demolition notice/order, the petitioner filed an appeal, M.C.A. 'No. 117 of 1971, to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, contending, inter alia, that he had not been afforded reasonable opportunity for showing cause, and that since no show cause notice had been served upon him he could not file his objections to the notice. The said contention was accepted and the learned Additional District Judge, (Shri Muni Lal Jain) allowed the appeal on 26.4.71 & set aside the demolition notice/order and remanded the case. The petitioner then filed his reply, dated 25.5.1971, to the show cause notice issued by the Zonal Engieer. Office of the Corporation put up a report that a 'partition wall' up to the height of 5 feet and 6 inches is allowed to be constructed by the Corporation with a penalty of Rs. 25.00 only, but not in the front set back, and that an open stair case is allowed only in plots of the extent of 100 square yards. In view of the sa...
Kedar Nath and anr. Vs. Mohani Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi171; ILR1972Delhi936
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) These two second appeals from orders were referred to a larger Bench by Mr. Justice S.N. Shankar because he found that there was divergence in the decisions of this court on the questions whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963 were applicable to an appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (2) The litigations out of which these appeals have arisen have followed more or less an identical course. We will refer to it briefly in order to show the questions we are called upon to decide have arisen. Mr. Kedar Nath, an advocate, instituted two separate proceedings for eviction against his tenants who held different premises on lease from him. In one proceeding which has given rise to S.A.O. No. 6 of 1968) the tenant was Naubat Ram. In the other (which has given rise to S.A.O. No. 54 of 1968) the tenants were Prabhu Dayal and Mamman Lal. The tenants in both the premises died while proceedings were pending before the Addit...
P.K. Seshan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi260
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) The petitioner through this revision petition has challenged the order dated 7th June, 1973, passed by Shri O. P. Singia, Special Judge, Delhi, whereby the learned Special Judge framed charges for commission of offences of conspiracy punishable under section 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (herein to be called 'the Act') and for the substantive offences punishable under section 420 Indian Penal Code . and section 5(2) of the Act against the petitioner and Shri R. K. Biria. The charge for the offence of conspiracy was framed against both of them and the charge of the commission of offence of cheating was framed against Shri R. K. Biria and that for the commission of offence of criminal misconduct was framed against the petitioner. (2) Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that M/s. Saurashtra Chemicals under license granted by the Government of India for manufacture of heavy and...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »