Delhi Court May 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.
Chanan Lal and anr. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1973
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT334
Rangarajan, J. (1) The facts leading to the revision petition brieffy are as follows :- Before Shri K. K. Chowdhury, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, Madan Lal gave a complaint against Chanan Lal and Ved Parkash (Petitioners) on 14-9-71 alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 323/504 Indian Penal Code . The police had already filed a challan in May, 1971, against yet another Chanan Lal, nephew of Mohan Lal (complainant). There was also a private complaint filed by Sohan Lal, uncle of Chanan Lal (Petitioner) against Mohan Lal (complainant) and two others under Section 323 I. P. C. All these complaints are said to relate to the same occurrence, which happened on 28th of March, 1971. (2) Shri B. N. Chaturvedi took cognizance of the complaint and examined the complainant besides four others witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The last of them was examined on 15-2-72. Subsequently it was posted on various dates for arguments and for orders; it was finally posted by...
S.D. Verma Vs. Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT505; 1973RLR503
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) This order will dispose of S.A.Os. 51 of 1971 and S.A.O. 20 of 1972, both filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter called 'the Act'). (2) The appellant in S.A.O. 51 of 1971 is the tenant in occupation of flat No. 17-B, Municipal No: PR/I 7, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi. He occupied the flat as tenant of Sir Sobha Singh (P) Ltd., respondent to this appeal. The tenant was employed in the State Bank of India. In 1964 he was transferred to Bombay. In January, 1969, an application for his eviction under clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act was filed on the ground that he had acquired vacant possession of and had been allotted a residence. Certain other grounds for eviction were also urged but no controversy in regard to them now survives. The tenant contested the application. He also contended that the application on behalf of the landlord which is a limited Company had not been filed by a duly authorised person. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR463(Delhi)
Ansari, J.1. This reference relates to assessment year 1958-59, the previous year for which is the year ending September 30, 1957. Seth R. Dalmia (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed') filed a return of his income for the assessment year 1958-59, disclosing an income of Rs. 99,496. In computing this income, he claimed, inter alia, that the loss incurred by him in the earlier years amounting to Rs. 2,52,121 from his business in shares should be set off against the dividend income of Rs. 3,12,734 which he had received during the accounting year. This dividend income represented the dividend received by the assessed from the shareholding in Jaipur Udyog Ltd. The assessed had also claimed allowance of interest amounting to Rs. 1,95,870 which was payable to M/s. Asia Udyog Pvt. Ltd. on the amount borrowed by the assessed for the purchase of the shares of Jaipur Udyog Ltd. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the assessed's claim for set-off on the ground that the dividend income did not c...
Tara Singh Harbhajan Singh and ors. Vs. Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT456
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This order will dispose of S. A. 0s. 38 of 1971, 39 of 1971 and 40 of 1971. (2) The appellants (hereafter called 'the tenants') in all these three appeals are in occupation of three different shops in property No. 1833-39, Gurdwara Sis Ganj, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as tenants of the respondent (hereafter called 'the landlord') at rates of rent which it is not material to mention for decision of the controversy in these appeals. (3) In February, 1967, the landlord filed three separate applications under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 for permission to file suits for eviction against the tenants. In November, 1968, permission was granted on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties according to which the landlord agreed to allow time to the tenants to vacate the premises in their respective occupation by October 31, 1970. (4) On November 21, 1968, after obtaining permission, the landlord filed three separate applicati...
Mulkh Raj Vs. Surat Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT359; 1973RLR560
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This is a petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order of the trial Court made on August 29, 1972 rejecting the petitioner's application under Older 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to ' amend the written statement so as to incorporate in it the plea that the respondent by misrepresentation got the lease deed executed : that the respondent was not the owner of the land in dispute even prior to the execution of the lease deed and that the land has always been Government properly and respondent was not entitled to realise any rent or to recover possession from the petitioner.(2) The suit out of which the present petition has arisen was filed by the respondent against the petition for ejectment of the petitioner from a piece of land and for the recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the said property. The suit was based on a lease granted by the respondent in favor of the petitioner for a period i f9 years 4 months....
Abnash Kaur Vs. the Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd., Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT357
P.N. Khanna, J (1) This order will dispose of three separate applications, SCAs 266, 267 and 268 of 1972, filed by Smt. Abnash Kaur. herein referred to as 'the petitioner', under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, for the grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court, against our judgment dated May 11th, 1972, where by we disposed of three Company Appeals Nos. 8, 10 and Ii of 1971. All the three appeals were directed against the judgment dated May 27, 1971 of the learned Company Judge, refusing the petitioner's prayer in her application foi winding up of the company. Lord Krishna Sugar Mills.(2) MR.G.C.MITTAL. appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that she was entitled as a matter of right to the grant of a certificate of. fitness as the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute in the court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not less than Rs 20.000.00and the judgment involved directly or indirectly claim or question...
J.S. Sachdev and ors. Vs. Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi392; (1973)IILLJ204Del
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The petitioners in both the writ petitions are the employees of the Reserve Bank of India. Delhi Centre, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and in their respective writ petitions, they seek to challenge tile validity of certain schemes formulated by the Bank regulating the fixation of seniority and the method of promotion of the said employees. It would be convenient to dispose of both the wilt petitions by a common judgment. (2) The Bank was constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The primary purpose for the constitution of the Bank, according to the preamble to the Act was 'to regulate the issue of Bank notes and the keeping of reserves with a view to securing monetary stability in India and generally to operate the currency and credit system of the country to its advantage'. To this primary function of the Bank, other functions were added from time to time as and when the parliament passed other legislation...
Mahamaya General Finance Co. Vs. Bhagwant Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR681
H.L. Anand, J. (1) The petitioners had given a vehicle to the respondents through a Hire Purchase agreement. It contained an arbitration clause which was that one S Ram Singh, Advocate could be asked to arbitrate at petitioner's direction. Disputes arose between the parties and an application was made U/S 20 of Arbitration Act The validity of the agreement was opposed on numerous grounds After narrating facts the judgment proceeds :- (2) The first question that needs to be determined is whether there is a valid and subsisting agreement of arbitration providing for reference of disputes to the sole arbitration of S. Ram Singh Ghoba, Arbitrator. (3) EX. P1 is the printed hire purchase agreement which was admittedly executed by the respondents and contains, amongst others, clause 26 which provides that all questions and matters of difference between the parties shall be determined at the owners' discretion and 'not otherwise' by arbitration to the sole arbitration of S. Raim Singh Gheba, ...
Shrimati JaIn Vs. Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1973
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas228(Delhi); ILR1973Delhi322
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This Order will also dispose of Company Petitions No. 1 and 2 of 1973, which have been filed by the husband of the petitioner and another shareholder, respectively, of the Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the Company) for calling a meeting of the Company (the calling of which 'otherwise' has become 'impracticable'), and for certain other directions (which are not uniform in all the three petitions) without which the petitioner's purpose in calling such a meeting may not be served. Under S. 186 of the Companies Act of 1956 (hereafter called the Act), the Court has been given power to call a meeting other than an annual general meeting; section 167 of the Act enables the Central Government alone to call an annual general meeting. To the details of these I shall revert later. It is necessary, to start with, to notice briefly the facts which have led to these petitions. (2) The Company was registered in the year 1916 as a public limited Company, but...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. S.B. Gurbaksh Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC91(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. M/s. S.B. Gurbaksh Singh, the respondent in this appeal, is a building contractor who is also a registered dealer under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. The respondent was assessed for the assessment year 1955-56, per assessment order dated 23rd November, 1959, passed by the Sales Tax Officer. The respondent appealed to challenge a part of the assessment on the ground that the assessment order was barred by time in respect of the first two quarters of the year. The Assistant Commissioner accepted this contention in appeal and remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment only with respect to the third and fourth quarters of the year in question. In exercise of his revisional powers, the Commissioner of Sales Tax suo molu set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order on 29th July, 1960, after notice to the respondent. Acting on this order, the Sales Tax Officer framed a fresh ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »