Delhi Court April 1973 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Jewan Lal Vs. Raj Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT371
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition has come up before me in consequence of the order pasted by ShriR.K. Sinha, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi or the 27.th of Februiry, 1973, in exercise of the jurisdiction provided by section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called 'the Code'. (2) The petitioner before me is the husband. The respondent Smt. Raj Rani had filed an application dated the 30th of November, 1970 against the petitioner under section 488 of the Code That application came up before the trial court on the 3rd of December, 1970, when it was directed that notice be issued to the respondent for the 4th of January, 1971. Subsequently it was noticed on the 12th of February, 1971 by the trial court that registered acknowledgment due notice had been refused. It was, however, ordered that fresh process be issued for the 17th of March, 1971. In the order passed on the 10th of June, 1971. the trial court again noticed that the registered acknowledgment due notice issued to the res...
Gopal Krishan Vs. Bimlesh Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR555
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner has applied under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to quash the order dated 22.7.72 passed by the Senior Sub-Judge Delhi (Shri H. K.S. Malik) granting permission to the respondent (plaintiff), in appeal' to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit regarding the subject matter of the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) The respondent (plaintiff) had filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner (defendant) from using a particular portion of the house contending that the portion was not part of the tenancy. The suit was, however, dismissed on two grounds, namely, (1) that a suit for mere injunction, without a prayer for possession, did not lie; and (2) that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the same was not part of the tenancy. As against, the said decision an appeal was preferred by the respondent who during the hearing of the appeal conceded that either the plaint may be am...
R.J. Sanopja Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1973
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT8
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 626, 627, 62h and 629, all D of 1964, They have been tiled by various licensed draftsmen who have been required by the Municipal Corporation cf Delhi to apply for registration in accordance with their impugned resolution dated 18th August, 1964 Which restrict their practice. (2) The mater at facts of the case are that the Delhi Municipal Committee which was the predecessor of the respondent Corporsuon framed bye-laws under sections 189(3), 190 and 191 of the Punjab Municipal Act ill of 1911. These bye-laws were framed oa or about 14th June, 1948 and copies of them have been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P. 1. These bve-laws do not require any detailed consideration, but it may be relevant to mention that they state that all plans accompanying the application for sanction to build shall be prepared by a draftsman licensed by the Municipal Committee and the license shall be granted to such persons who, in the opinion of ...
Y.K. Mathur and anr. Vs. the Commissioner, M.C.D. Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi266
Sachar, J. (1) This application under Article 132(1) and 133(1) of the Constitution of India has been filed for the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment dismissing the writ petition No. 1130 of 1972 on March 2, 1973. Two Municipal Councillors namely respondents 3 and 4 had in a meeting of the Delhi Municipal Corporation held on November 16, 1972, tendred their resignation from the membership of the Corporation. The commissioner, Municipal Corporation, however, had taken the view that as these resignation letters were not delivered to him personally they were not effective. Civil Writ 1130 of 1972 was filed challenging the order of the Commissioner and seeking the quo warranto that the seat of respondents 3 and 4 had become vacant as they must be deemed to have resigned from the Corporation. It was contended by respondents 3 and 4 that their resignation letters were not effective as the same were not delivered personally to the Commissioner as required by S...
In the Matter Of: Shki Hanuman Pershadganeriwala Vs. the Director of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT96; [1974]93ITR419(Delhi)
Dalip K. Rapur, J.(1) Hanuman Pershad Ganeriwala, the petitioner in this Writ Petition, is a karta of a Hindu Undivided Family, which derives income from several sources. Among; other sources it derives rental income from Krishna Moor Market, income from M/s Ganeriwala Trading Company Krishna Motor Market and license money from Associated Traders and Engineers(P) Ltd., in respect of a godown at 1. Raj Narain Road. Civil Lines. Delhi It is an assessed under the Incoms Tax and Wealth Tax Acts. The asssssments under these Acts have been completed (according to the petition) up to the assessment year 1970-71. On 10th March, 1970. the family purchased No. 1, Raj Narain Road. Civil Lines Delhi, and informed the Department of the purchase. These premises are now apparently the residerce of the petitioner and his family The business premises are situited at No. 1, Krishna Motor Market. Kashmeri Gale. Delhi, On 8th October, 1971, searches were carried out ai both these premises by the Income Ta...
Ram Babu and anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT377; 1973RLR397
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) Respondent Jaswant had filed suit No. 347/72 in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi against the appellant Ram Babu for a declaration that any order for ejectment which may be passed against Jaswant Singh in a suit filed by Ram Babu under section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 in the Court of the Revenue Assistant under Seriall No. 19 of schedule I to the Act would be a nullity. During the pendency of the suit Jaswant Singh filed an application under order Xxxix rules I and 2 Criminal Procedure Code for a temporaiy injunction restraining Ram Babu from proceedings with the suit before the Revenue Assistant. The Sub Judge Ist. Class dismissed the application. An appeal under section 104 read with order X 1-111 rule l(r) Civil Procedure Code was, thereforee, filed before H.C.Goel, Additional District Judge, Delhi. During the pendency of the appeal Jaswant Singh filed an application (M.C.A, 13/73) praying that either he should be allowed to amend the plaint ...
Pritapal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT374
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This petition has come up before me, in consequence of an order, passed by MK. Chawla, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi on the 9th of February, 197.). in exercise of the jurisdiction, given by section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, here- alter called 'lbe Code'-(2) A petition had been filed before the 'I have gone through the police report and found that the parson (s) named in the kalandra attempted to indulge in unlawful acts. I am satisfied that the circumstances of the case as mentioned in the kalandra warran s action u/s. 107 Cr P. C Issue notice under section 112 Cr. Pc read with u/s 114 Criminal Procedure Code to the respondent(s) named in the kalandra. To come up again on 28th December, 1972.'A close scrutiny of the order reveals a very sad state of affairs. The Subdivisional Magistrate, Patel Nagar, never in fact, passed any order. He was using a cyclosiyled form in which orders had been already framed. The cyclostyled form had been deviced for being used b...
Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Prem Lata and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT379
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 449 of 1972 as well. A petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, Delhi by Manohar Lal Sharma against the order made under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called 'the Code' on the 16th of September, 1972 by Mr. J.M Malik, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi. Another petition against the same order was filed by Shri R L Taluja, Advocate. The contention raised was that the order had been passed by the Judicial Magistrate without applying his mind to the statement of the complainant and the evidence produced by him. (2) These petitions have come up before me in consequence of the order made by Shri N.C. Kochhar, Addl. Sessions Judge, on the 6th of December, 1972 in exercise of his jurisdiction under section 438 of the Code. (3) The order, assailed before the Addl. Sessions Judge, may be reproduced:- 'Present: Complainant with his counsel. A prima facie case under section 500/502 Indian Penal Cod...
Gobind Ram Vs. Sumat Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT321; 1973RLR383
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The question that arises in this appeal is whether Messrs. Sheo Chand Rai Ram Partap v. Jagdish Pershad Shrivastava (I.L.R. 1966 Punjab 269) was correctly decided. (2) The appellant Gobind Ram is the tenant of the premises in question. The respondents are the landlords. The appellant applied to the Rent Controller under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for fixation of standard rent. Pending this application, the Rent Controller fixed interim rent at Rs. 95.00 per month under section 10 of the Act. The appellant did not pay or deposit the interim rent as fixed by the Rent Controller. On July 15, 1970, the respondents made an application to the Rent Controller praying for a direction to the appellant to deposit the interim rent fixed by the Rent Controller within a time to be fixed and, upon the appellant failing to do so, to dismiss the application for fixation of standard rent. (3) The appellant did not plead any payment but he contended that there was n...
Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi Vs. R. B. Jodhamal Kuthiala and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR570(Delhi)
ANDLEY C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C') has submitted a statement of the case referring the following question to this court :'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied under section 271(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could validity be reduced from Rs. 15,535 to Rs. 2,500 ?'The assessed year concerned is 1958-59. The assessed, a registered firm, was served with a notice under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the 1st of August, 1958. Time was allowed to it for filing its return up to May 14, 1959. The return was, however, filed on July 1, 1960. The assessed was completed on March 30, 1963, and on the same date, the Income-tax Officer issued notices under section 271 read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the assessed and thereafter a penalty of Rs. 15,535 was levied on it. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, held the penalty imposed. On second appeal, the Tribunal held that...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »