Delhi Court March 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.
Mubark Karim Vs. Bundu Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT318; 1973RLR426
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition has come up in consequence of an order passed by Shri S C. Chaturvedi. Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi on the 11th of December, 1972 in exercise of of the jurisdiction provided by section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called 'the Code'.(2) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was dealing with the order passed by Shri Ram Chandra, Judicial Magistrate It class on the 30th of August, 1972 under section 204 of the Code by which he directed process to be issued against 5 out of 8 persons who had been 'imp leaded as the accused in a complaint filed by the present petitioner.(3) It was contended before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the process should have been issued by the Magistrate against all the accused. It was found that the order declining to summon Hakim uddin and Abdul Sattar, did not give any reasons for not proceeding against them. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge reproduced the order passed by the Magistrate in paragraph 2 of the or...
Dal Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR428
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) The petitioner had as surety executed. a bail bond on the 3oth March, 1972 in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 affirming that the accused Chantal Compagan wife of of Sobhraj resident of French Embassy, 2-Aurangzeb Road will continue to apear in the course of the trial and he filed the bond in the Court of Shri K. B. Andley, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Dehli. In case of default on the part of the accused to appear in terms of the bond executed by by him the petitioner incurred the liability of paying the amount of Rs. 5,000.00 to the state. (2) The accused committed default in appearance. Proceedings under section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called 'the Code' were initiated. The petitioner appeared before '-the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the course of the proceedings on the 30th of August, 1972. On that date the following order was passed 'Surety wants one more adjournment to produce Mrs. Chantal Sobhraj. She be produced on 14/9'. (3) The pet...
Roop Lal Makkar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi130b; 1973RLR461
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Writs 1209/72, 1253/72, 1254/72 and 1290/72. Petitioners in all these petitions have assailed the order dated November 27, 1972/December 4, 1972, passed by the Administrator under section 5(1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 (hereafter called 'the Act') taking over temporary possession of the telephones installed in their names in various rooms of Coronation Hotel Building, Fatehpuri, Delhi. The questions involved in all the petitions being similar, they were heard together. For purposes of this order, facts of civil writ petition No. 1209/72 may be stated : 'ROOPLal Makkar, petitioner in C.W. 1209/72 carries on business of brokerage in vegetable oil and cloth. He is also the Vice Chairman of Om Oils and Oilseeds Exchange Ltd., which owns the building known as 'Coronation Hotel Building, Fatehpuri, Delhi-6'. He had two telephone connections under 'Own Your Telephone Scheme', with telephone Nos. : 262306 and 269983. Both the telep...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. Janki Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi30; 9(1973)DLT219; 1973RLR414
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This reference has been made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority', at the instance of Janki Devi under section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The question referred for the opinion of this Court is :- 'WHETHER the deed in question, which contemplates transfer of lease hold rights, acquired under the deed of lease dated 19.5.1965 and proprietory rights of commercial flat acquired under the sale certificate, is exempt from payment of stamp duty under exemption to Article 63 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.'(2) According to the statement of case submitted by the Authority, Janki Devi acquired lease-hold rights of a plot of land in Gokhle Market in a public auction upon which a commercial flat existed. The certificate of sale issued to Janki Devi is the certificate of sale issued in respect of lease-hold properties by the President of India under rule 90(15) of the Rules framed under the Displaced...
Prem Nath Motors Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR421
B.C. Misra, J. (1) The petitioners have filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved against the demand of advertisement tax in dispute by the respondent-Committee by its bills dated 28th December, 1963 and 26th February, 1964. (2) The petitioners have contended that levy of the advertisement tax by the respondent Committee under the notification of the Chief Commissioner under section 61(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act 3 of 1911 is unconstitutional and that the advertisements in dispute displayed by the petitioner do not constitute advertisements within the meaning of the expression used in the relevant bye-laws. In paragraph 9 of the writ, petitioners have further stated specifically that they have had no opportunity to show cause against the correctness of the levy in respect of the advertisement in dispute. They have, thereforee, prayed that a writ be issued restraining the respondent from enforcing the said demand. (3) The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the respondent-...
Parshotam Sarup Aggarwal Vs. the Collector of Stamps and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi155; 9(1973)DLT429; 1973RLR406
S.N. Andley, C.J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Stamp Duty Reference No. 2 of 1 68 under section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act made by Chief Controlling Revenue authority, hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' and Civil conditional. The first question of law posed for the opinion of this Court is :- (I)Whether C.C.R.A. is bound to make a reference under section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, to the High Court at the instance of a parly even when the C.C.R.A. had, afterhearing the petitioner, expressed a final opinion on merits of the question involved and had not thought it fit to refer that matter suo motu to the High Court and In which the petitioner had also not requested for a reference to the High Court before the C.C.R.A. had decided the matter himself without considering such a reference to be necessary.' Then the Authority has stated that in case the answer of this Court to the above question is io the affirmative, 'then and only then the reference on the following two ...
inder Singh and Four ors. Vs. Ram Sarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi78
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) Regular First Appeal No. 5-D of 1961 and the Civil Revision No. 55-D of 1961 are both directed against the judgment of Shri Gurbachan Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated October 1, 1960, and they can be disposed of by a common judgment. (2) The facts which have given rise to the appeal and revision are briefly as follows. Certain land measuring 1458 big has 9 bids was belonged to Inder Singh and five others who are sons of Shri Badri Singh. The land is situated at village Khampur, Delhi. The said land was acquired by the Delhi State Government in 1955 under the land Acquisition Act, and the Collector gave his award on March 23, 1956. One of the claimants, Ram Sarup, filed an application before the Land Acquisition Collector under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. in that application, he alleged that the aforesaid land was leased out to him for a period of twenty years, viz. from 1939 to 1959. under an order of the Court of the Senior Su...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR597(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. Messrs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. is a public limited company which was also a partner in a managing agency firm named Messrs. Morari Lal Batra & Co., which was managing another public limited company, Messrs. Bharat Carbon & Ribbon . Messrs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed') held a 25% share in the managing agency firm. There were two other partners, one of whom held a 50% share and the other a 25% share in the firm. At the instance of the partner holding the major share of 50%, a large sum was advanced on behalf of Messrs. Bharat Carbon & Ribbon ., that is the managed company, to a firm in Calcutta which repudiated having received that sum, but only accepted receipt of Rs. 11,409. The managed company, thereforee, was pat to a loss to the extent of Rs. 1,90,092. The other two partners in the firm including the assessed-company took upon themselves the liability to bear a loss of Rs. 95,092 out of which the assessed's portion amounted...
Kishan Lal Mahadeo Pershad and anr. Vs. I.K. Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi32; 9(1973)DLT303; 1973RLR315
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 by which respondent No. 2 herein has been granted permission to file a petition for eviction against the petitioners herein before the Rent Controller, Delhi.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case Lire that respondent No. 2 (landlord) filed an application before the Competent Authority on June 4, 1971 for permission to evict the petitioners herein (tenants) from the premises comprising of a shop bearing No. 272 in Katra Pyare Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi of which petitioner No. 1 is a tenant under respondent No. 2. The application for permission set out the various grounds for eviction which were available to respondent No, 2, namely, nonpayment of arrears of rent, sub-letting, substantial damage caused to the property and closure of business. According to respondent No. 2 petitioner No.1 was a p...
NaraIn Das Vs. Kundan Sugar Mills
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR139
T.V.R. Tatachar and R. Sachar, JJ. (1) Single Judge of the High Court dismised appellant's suit for not summoning any witness and for not producing any on the date fixed. His request for adjournment was declined. His counsel applied for copies of both the orders and filed appeal. He had not applied for copy of the decree and hence did not file same. Neither the office of High Court, the Registry brought this fact to his notice, Later he was informed that doing this was necessary and he asked one Sh. Ram Pershad. a senior clerk of a leading lawyer to apply for the said copy on his behalf and give the same to him. Ram Pershad obtained the same and wrote a letter to the appellant to this effect but the letter did not reach him as he had changed his address. Meanwhile Ram Pershad misplaced the said copy and not finding the same applied for another copy which was filed in the Court as soon as it was obtained. An application for condensation of delay was also filed. Printing charges were als...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »