Delhi Court February 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.
R. Dhiren Kiri Vs. Suraj Balaram Sahni and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi210; 1975RLR73
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) It is the distinction between the general principle of rest judicata (not confined to section 105 Civil Procedure Code) and the statutory finality of an order of remand under section 105(2) Civil Procedure Code which has to be spelt out and applied to the facts of the present case which are briefly as follows :-(2) MESSRS. Suraj Balram Sahni and Sons, & firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act (respondent herein) is the landlord and Dr. Dhiren Kiri is the tenant of the premises in question. The lease had been given in April 1958. An application for eviction was filed by the landlord against the tenant in 1962. The tenant filed a written statement in 1963 praying that standard rent of the premises be fixed. The landlord thereupon absented himself and the eviction petition was dismissed for his, default. The Controller latter dismissed the prayer of the tenant for the fixation of standard rent also on the ground that the petition for eviction having been dis...
A.D. Chawla Vs. Navrang Pictures Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR417
H.L. Anand, J.(1) The petitioner and respondents no. 1 & 2 entered into an agreement about finance and distribution etc. of certain motion pictures. Petitioner claiming that respondents no. 1 & 2 in contravention of agreement have exhibited through no. 3 or have assigned some rights to No. 3, moved Court U/S 20 of Arbitration Act. The question was whether No. 3 was bound by Arbitration agreement.) Para 13 onwards the judgment is: - (2) During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner died and his legal heirs were brought on the record and are the present petitioners. (3) The first question that requires consideration, thereforee, is whether respondent No. 3 could be said to be bound by the agreement of March 16, 1965, Ex. P. 1, between the petitioned and respondents No. 1 and 2 & the petitioner would be entitled to invoke the arbitration clause in the agreement so as to bring respondent No. 3 within the scope of the disputes between the petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 touc...
Siraj UddIn Alias Vs. Abdul Haq Pracha and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT250
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that defendant No. 1 did not become Mutvalli of the waqf properties of Hazi Abdul Quyyum situate at HimaltonRoad, Delhi, either on the basis of the Toliatnama of 15/09/1947 or otherwise under the provisions of the Mohammaden Law. A consequential relief is sought that defendant No. 1 be restrained by an appropriate order from evicting or dispossessing the plaintiffs in pursuance of order of the Rent Controller dated 31/08/1960, passed in Rent Control Case No. 1684 of 1959 entitled Abdul Haq Pracha v.Qutub Uddin and others. The property in respect of which the injunctions sought is Shop No. 648, Himalton Road, Delhi. It is contended that the said order of Rent Controller is a nullity, having been passed without jurisdiction.(2) The suit has been resisted on various grounds, inter alia, that it was not properly valued for the purposes of court-fees and no proper court-fees has been paid. Prithvi Raj, J. by his ...
Motia Kaur Vs. Shanti Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR231
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) This second appeal U/S 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) by the tenant is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal accepting the appeal of the respondents and granting an order for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute in their favor. (2) The husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents 2 to 4, Brij Raj Bhagat, was the landlord in respect of premises bearing No. 24-G, Kalhaji, New Delhi, occupied by the appellant as a tenant. On November 20. 1968, Brij Raj Bhagat filed an application for eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need. This application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on June 6, 1970. Aggrieved from this, Brij Raj Bhagat filed an appeal. Oa April 26, 1972, during the pendency of this appeal, Brij Raj Bhagat died. The Rent Control Tribunal imp leaded the present respondents a? the legal representatives of the deceased landlord and by order dated November 23, 1972 accepte...
Om Parkash Vs. Pushpa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR29
Avadh Behari, J. (1) On 30th October, 1969 one Om Parkash made an application to the guardian judge for the custody of his minor son Vijay Kumar under S. 25 of the Guradian and Wards Act. Vijay Kumar was living with his mother Smt. Pushpa. Om Prakash and Smt. Pushpa were married several years ago and this male child was born to them on 2nd of April, 1964 It appears that later on their relations were unhappy and they drifted apart. Om Prakash made this application for the custody of his minor son. (2) In the proceedings under S. 25 the mother could not be served with summons in the ordinary manner. The Court ordered substituted service under 0. 5 r. 20, C. P. C. There was publication in the newspaper. Even then the mother did not appear to contest the proceedings. On 4th of April, I960, the guardian judge passed an ex parte order directing that the custody of Vijay Kumar be handed over to his father Om Prakash. (3) On 16th September, 1970, Om Prakash made an application under S. 100 of ...
Kamla L.M. Harvettaker Vs. Om Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT172; 1974RLR247
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is tenant's second appeal against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal by which it passed an eviction order against the appellant from the premises in dispute under clause (a) to Proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (to be called the Act).(2) The respondent Om Parkash, brought an application for eviction against the appellant from the premises in dispute. The grounds for eviction were non-payment of arrears of rent and also bona-fide requirement by the respondent-landlord owner as well as the substantial damage to the premises. The appellant resisted the application. (3) The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 21st September, 1972 held that the respondent was the landlord owner of the premises and that the same had been let out for the residential purposes and were also required by the landlord for residence of self and the members of the family. He also found that as the appellant had not paid or tendered the arrears o...
P.L. Lakhanpal Vs. A.N. Ray and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi66; 11(1975)DLT1; ILR1974Delhi725
S.N. Andley, C.J. (1) These four writ petitions were heard together. Substantially, they raise the same questions. Primarily the writ petitioners have prayed for a writ of quo warranto to challenge the appointment on April 25, 1973 with effect from April 26, 1973 of Justice A. N. Ray, one of the respondents herein. Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as the Chief Justice of India on the retirement of Justice S. M. Sikri, the then Chief Justice of India. The respondents to the petitions are the Union of India; Mrs. Indira Gandhi (Prime Minister of India) ; Mr. H. R. Gokhale (Minister of Law and Justice) and Justice A. N. Ray. Counter affidavits have been filed by and on behalf of the Union of India and Mr. H. R. Gokhale. Originally, Mr. Kumaramanglam, the then Minister of Steel and Mines, was also in the array of respondents but his name was deleted on his demise.(2) The counter affidavits have replied to the facts relating to the merits of the petitions and at the same time contain de...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Krishna Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi14; [1974]95ITR97(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) M/S. Ram Krishna Steel Rolling Mills (hereinafter referred to as the assessed) is a firm carrying on the business of re-rolling steel. It took on lease the factory premises from one Ravinder Nath under a lease deed dated 2-4-1956. The lease was for a period of five years commencing from 1st April, 1956. the rent payable for the premises was Rs. 500.00 per month. The lease deed did not contain any term giving the option to the assessed to renew the lease for a further period. On the other hand, the lease was terminable before the expiry of the lease period at the instance of the assessed by giving one month's notice. The lease was also terminable at the instance of the Lesser, on the breach of any of the conditions of the lease. The lease deed did not contain any specific term with regard to the liability of the Lesser or the lessee in respect of the repairs to the factory premises. But clause 10 of the lease provided that during the period of the lease, the lessee...
State Vs. Man Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi582; 1974RLR276
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) Many years ago there lived in Peshawar a man named Tara Chand Saraf. It appears that he had a Jeweller's business. He had no children. On 20th December 1927 he made a will and had it registered. The original will is lost, or at any rate is not now traceable or procurable. Mr. Partap Singh, one of the present trustees of the trust created by that will, has made a statement before me to that effect. He says that he went to Peshawar in 1964 and tried to locate the original will, but was unseccessful. He also says that he was informed that the records pertaining to the will in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Peshawar, had been burnt. I have no reason to disbelieve him. As secondary evidence a printed copy of the will has been proved by this gentleman and marked Ex. P-l. No other copy is available.(2) The will is in Urdu. A transliteration has been placed on record which I will use for quotation. First of all there is a recital in which the testator says: 'WHEREASby t...
Mohinder Pal Vs. Ram Rali Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR243
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal holding that the appellant had defaulted in making deposits in accordance with the order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller. The fresh ground urged in this appeal, for the first time, is that this order under Section 15(1) was illegal and without jurisdiction. (2) The relevant facts are that the respondent filed an application for eviction of the appellant, amongst others, on the ground that he was in arrears of rent which he had not paid in spite of a duly served notice of demand and eviction In the reply filed by the appellant, the subsistence to relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the rate of rent for the premises was admitted. The due service of the notice of demand and eviction was also not denied. On August 28, 1971, the learned Additional Rent Controller passed an order under Section 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »