Delhi Court July 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.
Matu Ram and Sons and anr. Vs. ElgIn Mills Co., Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi205
S.N. Shanker, J.1. In this appeal the judgment-debtors have assailed the order Passed by the learned Single Judge during execution of the decree obtained by the respondents against them.2. On April 30, 1963, the respondents obtained a decree for Rs. 75,000/- the odd against the appellants from the Civil Court at Kanpur. On the basis of a transfer certificate, on August 18, 1964, the decree-holders filed an application for execution of this decree in the court of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi. On May 5, 1965, the executing court attached houses of the judgment-debtors, bearing Nos. 4763 and 4764 situated at Deputy Gani, Sadar Bazar, Delhi in execution of the decree. On October 14. 1966 the appellant, Matu Ram, stated before the executing court that he had properties other than the attached houses which were specified in the statement filed in court and marked Exhibit J-1 and the decree older may Proceed against those properties first. The respondents agreed to his suggestion ...
Hukam Chand Vs. Delux Finance and Chit Fund (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1973
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT88; 1973RLR644
ORDER9, Rule 9:,-(1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause turn his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. (2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.'Order 43. Rule 1. Appeals from orders.-An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104 namely:- (A)* * * * * * (b) * * * * * * (c) an order under Rule 9 of Order Ix rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit; * * * *(8) It is apparent that the provisions for...
Roshan Lal Sethi Vs. Madan Mohan Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi97
Dalip K. Kapur, J. (1) I have heard the petition at great length on the maintainability of the petition. Learned counsel have referred to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, reported as Colaba Land and Mills Company Ltd. v. Vasant Investment Corporation Ltd. and others 1963 CLJ 89. In that case there were certain observations showing that a petition under Section 543 made in connection with a petition under Section 397 or 398 may be filed even after the petition under Section 397 or 398 has been decided. That decision was arrived at during the course of arguments in a pending petition under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956. (2) In the present case there was a petition under Section 543 filed during the pendency of a petition under Section 397 and 398 of the Act but for some reason, the petition under Section 397 and 398 was withdrawn and this petition remained pending. The question that has now arisen is whether the petition under Section 543 can continue to be heard, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi741; [1974]94ITR486(Delhi)
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', herein called 'the Tribunal', in compliance with the directions of this court in I.T. Case No. 9-D of 1962, at the instance of the Revenue. 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 were not applicable to the case of Messrs Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Private Limited, New Delhi, for the assessment year 1955-56.'(2) The respondent company, Messrs Uttam Singh Duggal & Company Private Limited, New Delhi, herein called 'the assessed', is a private limited company carrying on business as a contractor. It maintains its accounts on mercantile basis. The assessment year concerned is 1955-56 and the relevant accounting year is the calendar year ending on December 31, 1954. (3) The assessed filed a return showing an income of Rs. 4,65,756.00, later on revised to Rs. 3,85...
R.P. Singh and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi172
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) Delhi Administration decided to take over the Higher Secondary Schools and The Middie Schools that were bcing run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. On April 20, 1970, thc Additional Secretary (Education) Delhi Administration, thereforee, sent a letter to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, enciosing, amongst others, terms and conditions regarding absorption of employees of these schools in the Delhi Administration. At its Special meeting held on May 12, 1970 the Corporation by resolution No. 127 accepted those terms and conditions and agreed to the transfer of The schools along with staff and accessories etc. to Delhi Administration with effect from June l, 1970 or soon thercafter. On May 27, 1970 the Lt. Governor, Delhi, by notification No. F. 26(60)/70-Edn. notified for g nerai information, with the prior sanction of the President of India, that he had decided to take over The Middie (Classes VI-VIII) and Higher Secondary (Classes VI-XI) schools from Mu...
Sukhdev Raj Nanda Vs. P.D. Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR526
Safeer, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the decree dated the 20th of November, 1962 made by Shri M.L. Mirchia, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi by which he dismissed the appellants, suit for possession, raises the short question whether the respondent was a tenant in the property in suit and could avail of the protection enuring out of that status.(2) The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Shukhdev Raj Nanda and Smt. Lila Nanda against the present respondent for the possession of house No. 1112-12 (new) situated at Gail No. 12, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, Delhi and for the recovery of Rs. 75,0000 as damages and mesne profits or license fee for the period 12-5-1958. (3) The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of the property in suit which had originally belonged to Chaudhari Noor Mohd. who had mortgaged the same with possession with M/s. Ideal Bank Ltd., Fatehpuri, Delhi for a sum of Rs. 15,000.00. Chaudhary Noor Mohd. had subsequently created further mortgages on the said hou...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishan Bans Bahadur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR714(Delhi)
Khanna, J.1. This judgment will dispose of three references, Income-tax Reference No. 28 of 1969, in the case of Krishan Bans Bahadur, and No. 80 of 1971, in the case pf his brother, Brij Bans Bahadur, and one Wealth-tax Reference No. 2 of 1972 in the case of Brij Bans Bahadur. All these references are at the instance of the revenue. 2. In Income-tax Reference No, 28 of 1969, there is a consolidated statement of case under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relating to Krishan Bans Bahadur, as individual for the assessment year 1960-61, as Hindu undivided family, also for the assessment year 1960-61, and as Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1961-62. The common question of law is as follows : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that 660 shares belonged to the assessed'sHindu undivided family and, thereforee, the income there from was not taxable in the hands of the assessed in the status of an indivi...
Jagdish Kaur Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC522(Delhi)
Dalip K. Kapur, J.1. A question of some interest for the determination of the sales tax law as applicable to Delhi has arisen in this writ petition. The petitioner, Shrimati Jagdish Kaur, is the widow of Sq. Leader Ajit Singh, who resigned from the Indian Air Force sometime in 1956-57, and started the business of manufacturing steel doors and windows under the name of 'Steel Co.' He died on 26th April, 1963, and according to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner succeeds as his heir by virtue of his will dated 12th September, 1960, and thereafter, she continued to carry on the business after her husband's death. At that time sales tax assessment proceedings were pending against the Steel Co. for the year 1962-63 and a notice was issued to the petitioner in that respect. The petitioner protested to the assessing authority on the footing that there was no provision in the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi, permitting an heir of a deceased dealer bein...
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) and anr. Vs. Hans Raj and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi119
V.D. Misra, J. (1) The plaintiffs have brought this suit alleging infringement of registered trade marks of their syrup 'Rooh Afza' and for passing off this syrup by the defendants. The plaintiffs aver that trade mark 'Rooh Afza' is registered under trade marks Nos. 3007, 138780 and 173555 in Class 32. The first trade mark was registered on May 17, 1949. Thereafter, the registration has been duly renewed from time to time. Plaintiffs No. 2 are the registered proprietors of the, trade marks and have appointed plaintiffs No. 1 as the registered users of the same. Defendant No. 1 is stated to have started manufacturing, selling and offering for sale his sharbat under the trade mark 'Rooh Afza'. He is said to have imitated the general get-up, lay out and colour scheme of the plaintiffs' labels with respect to the same. Defendant No. 2 is the person through whom defendant No. 1 introduced his product in the market at Delhi. Defendant No. 2 in his written statement admitted selling defendant...
Sushiladevi and ors. Vs. Basakha Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi759
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is an application under Section 439(8) of the Companies Act 1956 read with Rule 101 of the Companies (Court) Rules and Order I, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Section 391 of the Companies Act. This is an application by Smt. Sushila Devi, Smt. Ganga Devi and Shri Inder Kumar Marntani directed against M/s. Basakha Singh & Co. (P)Ltd. and the official Liquidator. From the facts disclosed in the application, it appears that the applicants claim to be unpaid creditors of the company. It is stated that there are Hundis due sometime in 1966 drawn in favor of the applicants. Apparently on 13th June, 1967, a winding up petition was filed by one Gauri Dikshit in this court which was numbered as Company Petition 13 of 1967. That petition remained pending for a considerable period but there was a settlement between the petitioning creditors and the respondent company, which led to the winding up petition being withdrawn. It is stated that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »