Delhi Court October 1974 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.
Shori Lal JaIn Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi221; 11(1975)DLT69; 1974RLR638
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ petitions 48 to 57 to 1972 also. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1162 of 1971 is one of the three partners of the firm known as Messrs Jain Optical Industries, carrying on business of optical goods as a tenant in shops No. 2395/1, 2397 to 2400, Ballimaran, Delhi. The petitioners in the other petitions are tenants in other shops, all housed in building known as Kothi Nawab Loharowali, Bazar Ballimaran, Delhi (No. 2376 to 2382, 2395 to 2402), which has been acquired for the purpose of running two Government Girls Higher Secondary Schools. The first and second floors of the building were taken on rent by the Government in May, 1957 at a rent of Rs. 1150.00 per month for running the School. The ground floor of the property comprises 19 shops/godowns, one of which lias been rented to the Government and is in the use of the Government Schools. The annual rental income to the owners from these shops/godowns in the ground floor...
Rai Bahadur Hurdutroy Moti Laljute Mills Private Limited Vs. Union of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi382
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The first petitioner is a private limited company. which has its registered office in Calcutta and which owns a jute mill situated in Katihar, in the District of Purnea, State of Bihar. The second petitioner is one of its directors. This writ petition has beenfiled, challenging the order of the Central Government dated 22/12/1971, setting up a committee for investigation intothe affairs of the petitioners' undertaking under section 15 of theIndustries (Development & Regulation) Act 65 of 1951, (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act'). The admitted case of the parties is that the order has been passed on the ground mentioned in sub-clause (i) ofclause (a) of section 15 of the Act, which reads as follows :'15 Whether the Central Government is of the opinion that (A)in respect of any scheduled industry or industrial undertaking or undertakings : (I)there has been, or likely to be, a substantial fall in thevolume of production in respect of any article or classof articles r...
Naut Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR82
S. Rangarajant, J. (1) [PETITIONER was selected and appointed as A.S.I. Ob 1.4 54 and confirmed on 1-4-57. On 27-12-57 he was appointed as S.I in a substantive vacancy against a permanent post. In August. 61, one Sewa Ram of Rajendra Market complained to petitioner who was in charge of police post at Tis Hazari about theft of Rs. 1,200.00 from his shop. On being asked to give details he promised to bring the same. Sewa Ram later on declined to lodge the complaint on the plea that the Market Panchayat had got him his stolen money from Godar Singh and Mohan. Petitioner took Sewa Ram and others to Police Station, Sabzi Mandi as Tis Hazari post was under that station. The S.H.O. on hearing Sewa Ram did not feel the necessity of registering the complaint. Godar Singh then complained that petitioner had harassed him by detention for a day to make him pay Sewa Ram. The Anti-Corruption branch of the police investigated this. An year later, order of District Magistrate was sought under Rule 16 ...
Gee Vee Enterprise Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi53; [1975]99ITR375(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) An important question repeatedly raised before the Admission Benches of the High Courts is whether and if so when a writ petition challenging the validity of an order of a statutory authority should be entertained even though a statutory appeal is provided against the said order but is not availed of by the petitioner.(2) This and the connected writ petition (civil writ 781 of 1974) each challenges the validity of an order of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cancelling the order of assessment made by the Income-Tax Officer and asking the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. These orders were appealable under section 253 of the said Act to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal but neither have they been appealed against nor has any Explanationn been given in the writ petitions as to why the petitioners chose not to file appeals but to file these writ petitions.(3) The challenge to the impugned ord...
The Punjab National Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1974
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas408(Delhi); ILR1975Delhi415; 1975RLR314
Prakash Narain, (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Punjab National Bank Ltd., New Delhi and three of its shareholders pray for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus to the Union of India, the Reserve Bank of India and the Custodian, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, to discharge their obligations under Section 5(1) of Act 5 of 1970 and pay the interim dividend declared by and in the resolution dated July 16. 1969 of the Board of Directors of the Punjab National Bank Ltd.(2) On July 16. 1969 the Board of Directors of the Punjab National Bank Ltd. passed a resolution declaring an interim dividend for the half year ending on June 30, 1969 at the rate of Rs. 1 .20 gross per share. This resolution was passed by virtue of the authority vested in the Board of Directors under Article 84 of the Articles of Association of the said Bank. The Members' Share Register was directed to be closed for recording any transfer of shares from...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›