Delhi Court August 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.
Prabhati Vs. Budho Devi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR672
H.L. Anand, J. (1) By this Second Appeal the appellant, who was defendant in the proceedings filed by the respondents for his ejectment challenges the order of the Rent Control Tribunal by which the Tribunal has confirmed in appeal the order made by the Controller for the eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute. (2) The appellant has been in occupation of the demised premises as a tenant and was served with a notice of February 17, 1969 on behalf of the respondents terminating the tenancy of the appellant and requiring him to pay the arrears of rent due until February 12, 1969. The notice was eventually exhibited as Ex. AW3/1 in the proceedings tiled by the respondents on May 4, 1971 seeking ejectment of the appellant inter alia, on the ground that the appellant had been guilty of non-payment of rent and that a sum of Rs. 208.00 was due from the appellant for the period December 13, 1969 to April 12, 1971. There was, however, no averment in the petition for eviction that...
P.K. Nagia and ors. Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1973
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ279Del
ORDERV.S. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners are Aircraft Maintenance Engineers of the Indian Airlines while respondents Nos. 4 to 7 are supervisory officers over them. licenses are issued to the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 made under the Aircraft Act, 1934 by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation functioning there under. licenses of existing holders are also extended under these Rules to cover the new aircrafts known as Boeing 737. Two requirements are necessary for obtaining such a license or for the extension thereof to cover Boeing 737. These two requirements are specified in Clauses (4) and (5) of Rule 61 which are reproduced below:(4) An applicant shall possess experience appropriate to the category of the license or extension of the license required, as laid down in Section 'F' of Schedule HI. This experience shall include experience of having worked at least for three months on the type of aircraft, or engine or accessory for which he has appl...
B.L. Bhatia Vs. Indian Standards Institution and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi374
S.N. Andicy, C.J. (1) Broadly speaking, three questions arise in this writ petition. The first question is whether the Indian Standard Institution, hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution', which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. is an authority and, thereforee, 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The second question is whether in retiring the petitioner at the age of 58. the Institution lias violated Article 14 or Article 16 of file Constitution. The third question is whether the petitioner who is an employee of the Institution is the holder of a civil post under the Union to attract Article 311 of the Constitution. (2) According to the petitioner, he joined Government service as an Assistant in June, 1937. In September, 1946 the Government of India m its Department of Industries & Supplies passed a resolution (Resolution No. I STD(4)/45) for the establishment of an Indian Standards Institution and prepared a scheme. In p...
Bhim SaIn Vs. Raj Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR627
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is an appeal by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13.10.72 by which he set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 7-10-1969 and directed eviction of the appellant. (2) The respondent landlady on April 17, 1965 filed an application under clause (g) of Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bonafide by the landlady for the purpose of re-building and such re-building could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It was also alleged that the proposed reconstruction would not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let and that the premises in dispute were in a dilapidated condition and it was in the public interest that the premises be reconstructed. It was further alleged that the reconstruction was necessary to meet the requirement of the petitioner and her fam...
V. Rajaraman Liquidator of Globe United Engineering and Foundry Co. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi200; [1975]45CompCas184(Delhi)
1. V. Rajaraman, Liquidator of Globe United Engineering & Foundry Ltd. has instituted this suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,00,000 against the defendant M/s. Hindustan Brown Bovery Ltd. The defendant filed his written statement and then subsequently amended it. The defendant has raised a number of preliminary objections.2. Firstly, it is alleged that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit since no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court and the defendant's registered office is situated in Bombay. The second objection is that the suit as framed and filed in the name of V. Rajaraman is not competent. Thirdly, it is alleged that no leave of the court was obtained prior to the filing of the suit against the defendants.3. In the replication, the plaintiff submitted that no prior sanction was required for the institution of the suit by the plaintiff and went on to say that if any sanction is required the same car be granted even after ...
V. Rajaraman, Liquidator, Globe United Engineering and Foundry Co. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1973
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas330(Delhi); ILR1973Delhi870b
Khanna, J. 1. The only question which this company appeal has raised is : Can the remuneration of a liquidator fixed at the time of his appointment in a voluntary winding-up be increased under any circumstances, after the said voluntary winding-up has been brought under the supervision of the court 2. The company (Globe United Engineering & Foundry Co. Ltd.), on December 28, 1968, passed a special resolution for its winding up voluntarily. Shri V. Rajaraman, the appellant before us, was appointed the liquidator and his remuneration was fixed at Rs. 3,000 only. Therewas a challenge to this resolution from another company, Messrs. Globe Motors Ltd., through a petition, No. C. P. 8 of 1909. As a result of a compromise the learned company judge ordered voluntary winding-up to continue, subject to the supervision of the court. The appellant-liquidator, because of an alleged increase in his work, applied for a revision of his remuneration, so as to bring it at par with that of the official l...
Manbhari Bai (Deceased) Through Her Lrs. Vs. Sat NaraIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi184; 1974RLR33
S.N. Shankear, J.(1) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judgc accepting the application of the respondents for bein substituted in place of the Officiai Recciver who was the oniy appellant in R.F.A. 131-D of 1966.(2) Sometimes in February, 1963 the respondents, Sat Narain, Savitri Devi and Ram Kumar, moved an application under sections 9(1) and 13(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act before the Insolvency Court praying 'that onc Bura Mal be declared an insolvent and a Receiver of his estate be appointed. In this petition, the Insolvency Court appointed Officiai Receiver as the Interim Receiver of the estate of Bura Mal. In April, 1966 one Ram Murti Devi, wife of a son of the brother of Bura Mal filed a suit for partition in respect of the propertics comprised in .the estate of Bura Mal against Manbhari Bai, widow of a real brother of Bura Mal, and Bura Mal. The Officiai Receiver was aiso imp leaded as a defendant in this suit....
Gulab Chand Sharma Vs. H.P. Sharma Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi190; [1974]95ITR117(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) These two petitions under section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code have been referred to the Division Bench mainly to consider the question whether the previous decision between the parties in C.W. 189-D/1965 acts as rest judicata barring the petitioner from raising in these petitions those contentions which have been aiready decided against him in the writ petition.(2) The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner Sharma in his return under the Income-Tax Act 1922 for the assessment year 1959- 60 claimed deduction for the payment of a sum of Rs. 18,000.00 allegediy made to M/s. Modem Sanitation for electrical and sanitary supervising charges during the relevant year. On enquiry, the lncome-Tax Officer was of the view that the alleged payee did not exist at ail and no such payment had been made by the petitioner. Not only the petitioner's daim to the deduction was disallowed in the assessment but two further proceedings were taken against the petitioner under the Inco...
Sri Chand Vs. Chander Kumar Vaish and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi677
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) On September 7. 1972 Sri Chand presented an application under Order Xliv rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, accompanied by a memorandum of appeal, for being allowed to appeal as a pauper against the order, dated July 20, 1972 made by Shri J.D. Jain, Additional District Judge, rejecting his claim for sharing the compensation awarded in respect of 2 Bighas and 18 bids was of land. Along with the said application another application (Civil Miscellaneous No. 723) was also submitted by him with a request that the operation of the order sought to be appealed against may be stayed pending disposal of the appeal.(2) The application for being allowed to appeal as a pauper and the stay application were listed for September 11, 1972. On that date notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents and it was directed that if the amount of compensation had not already been withdrawn then out of the compensation awarded Rs. 23,160.20 shall not be with drawn pending further o...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. P.N. Sikand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi730; [1974]94ITR571(Delhi)
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The following question of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal has been referred under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to this court for its opinion : 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the right created by the release deed dated 13-11-67 was not a right on the relevant valuation date, within the meaning of sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph A of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'(2) The valuation date relevant for the assessment year 1968-69 is December 31, 1967. We are required to determine, in reality, if the assessed had any right in the land and the building constructed by him, whether under the release deed dated 13-11-1967, or otherwise, oa the relevant date, within the meaning of sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph A of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. As the wording of the question is rather vague, and docs not bring cut the tru...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »