Delhi Court March 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.
Prem Sheel Malhan Vs. R.P. Chawla Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR522
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) [PETITIONER bought suit property on 22.12.61. It was in the occupation of 4 respondents and one Gurdas Ram as tenants. He sued the tenants U/S 14(1)(e) claiming requirement for his family members of 11. Shri P.K. Bahri, Arc, allowed petition against Gurdas but dismissed same against Abbi and Chawla holding that need for father, brother and sister was not bona fide. Similarly Sh. K.B. Andley. Arc, dismissed petitions against Katyal and Chand Kaur. 5 appeals were taken to Tribunal which were dismissed. Landlord alone filed appeals in High Court. Katyal gave possession during pendency of appeal.] Sao 223/72, 225/72 & 226/72 were adjudged thus :- Sao 223 of 1972. The respondents to this appeal are the legal representatives of the original tenant Om Parkash Chawla. Even before the Tribunal, Om Parkash Chawla had died, so his legal representatives had been brought on record by the order of Tribunal dated 23rd of July, 1970. It was so urged by Shri Bhatia, the counsel f...
Jaswant Singh Vs. Om Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT367; 1974RLR323
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) The petitioner has come up with the grievance that the complaint filed by him in his official capacity was dismissed by the trial Court by a non-judicial order. It is submitted that the petition filed under section 435 against the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate who had dismssed the complaint on the 15th of December, 1972 is also illegal. (2) The complaint was filed by Shri Jaswant Singh Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise Revenue under section 135 of the Customs Act. It was alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint that on the 2nd of April, 1970 the Custom Officials had searched the premises of M/s. New Man's Store, 44-A, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and had recovered articles valued at Rs. 4000.00. The goods recovered were mentioned in annexure 'B' filed Along with the complaint, 0m Parkash proprietor of the firm was asked to produce any evidence showing that he had lawfully purchased or acquired or imported the articles found in his possession. In p...
R.P. Kapur Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT150
ORDER6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure would be as much applicable to such a suit as to a suit in which court fee had been duly paid.(8) When the court refuses to allow the applicant to sue as a pauper under Order 33 Rule 7 (3) the suit which was already instituted does not come to an end because the application by which the suit was commenced is a composite document comprising a plaint and a prayer to sue in forma pauperis and, thereforee, when the latter alone is refused the suit does not automatically come to an end: See Jugal Kishore v. Dhanno Devi'. (9) The other objection is purely technical and is stated to be rejected. It is enough to say that all that the amended rule 17 of, Order 6, Code of Civil Procedure, requires is that the amendment sought should be specified in the application. This the petitioner has done in this case. (10) The other application for extension of time has been opposed principally on two grounds. Firstly, it is said that by reason of the failure of the ...
Narpat Rai Sharma Vs. Inspector General of Registration, New Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT262
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which is concerned with certain rules made in exercise of the powers of the Inspector General of Registration Delhi, under Section 69(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act,1908: The petitioner Shri Narpat Rai Sharma is a Writer of Documents and petitions. He claims to be carrying on the profession of petition and Documents Writsr. The rules inquestion were issued by a notification dated 1st December, 1966, published in the Delhi Gazette of that date. They regulate the writing of documents. They also limit the fees that can be charged by Document Writers. I shall presently refer to some of the rules to show that very low fees have been prescribed and the question that I have to. deal with turns on the effect of these rules. The rules are challenged by the petitioner as being framed without authority of law on the ground that Section 69(1)(bb) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, amounts to exce...
Murari Lal Vs. Nem Chand JaIn Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR466
B.C. Misra, J.(1) Suit premises was an evacuee property It was allotted to one Sham Babu. After his death, the plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession as partners and that this was re1 cognised by Custodian and that they had been illegally dispossesed by defendant. Defendant denied this and claimed that he was in lawful possession. Plaintiffs sought interim injunction and filed a carbon copy of a receipt from the department. Defendant claimed the receipt to be forged one and applied that plaintiffs should produce original receipt and also summon record from Custodian's office. Plaintiffs replied that they had lost the original and about summoning record, it was held that plaintiffs could not be compelled and defendant could himself do the same. The Sub-judge got transferred and defendant moved his successor for summoning record. This application was declined and defendant moved High Court. Para 6 onward, order is : - (2) The later order of the Subordinate Judge dt. 26-7-73 has ...
H.R. Wool Trading Co. and ors. Vs. Ram Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi1b
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal came up originally before S. N. Andley, C. J. and Prakesh Narain, J. on February 19, 1974, for admission. Notice was ordered to the respondents by the Division Bench to show cause why the Appeal should not be admitted. An affidavit showing cause has been filed by the respondents, and the matter has now come up before us for admission. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties, and we are of the opinion that the appeal is not maintainable for the following reasons.(2) A suit (No. 442 of 1973) was filed on the Original Side of this High Court for the recovery of Rs. 1,14,375.72 under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On receiving notice of the same, the defendants to the suit filed an application, I.A. No. 3015 of 1973, under Order 37, Rule 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave ...
Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi337; [1974]96ITR530(Delhi)
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against a notice of the Income-Tax-cum-wealth Tax Officer, Ward Viii, New Delhi dated 29th March, 1966 issued under section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1957-58 intimating that the Income-Tax Officer had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner for the said assessment had escaped assessment and he proposed to re-assess the same and that the notice had been issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income-Tax.(2) The previous year of the petitioner is calendar year 1956 and the assessment year is 1957-58. For the year in dispute, the petitioner was assessed to income-tax by order dated 10th September, 1958. By this order, the amount of interest claimed by the petitioner on account of loans had been allowed. During this year, the petitioner had 'Parted a restaurant known as Gaylord Restaurant, Bombay and it had taken loans from the Delhi office as well as other parties. ...
Satyapal Vs. Parsani Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT124
H. L. Anand, J.(1) By this secoud appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called ' the Act'), the appellant, an unsuccessful tenant, challenges anorder of the Rent Control Tribunal by which it has affirmed in appeal an order made by the Additional Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground that the premises in dispute were bona fide required by the respondent/landlady for her residence and that the respondent/ landlady had no other suitable accommodation available for the purpose. (2) The appellant has been in occupation of the premises in dispute being a portion of the ground floor of the property, consisting of two rooms, a verandah, kitchen, bath, court-yard and a common laterine. The landlady has been in occupation of a part of the first floor of the property and while it is not disputed that the premises in the occupation of the landlady on the first floor is ...
Phoenix Cotton Tape Factory, Delhi and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT340; 1974RLR646
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) Phoenix Cotton Tape Factory,Delhi, is the name and style in which, at all material times, a Mr. S.Aggarwal carried on business as sole proprietor. He is the petitionerin this case. In 1963 he submitted a tender to the Director Generalof Supplies and Disposals at the later's office in Bombay for certaingoods required by the Union of India. The tender was accepted and alatter of acceptance was issued. In the contract operative betweenthe parties there was an arbitration clause which provided that disputes arising under the contract would be 'referred to the sole arbitration of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals or of someother person appointed by him.'(2) Disputes did arise, and in 1967 an arbitrator was appointed.It appears that the Arbitrator originally appointed was replaced byothers, but nothing turns on that. All of them wished to hold theproceedings in Bombay. The petitioner wanted the proceedings to beheld in Delhi. Consequently, he applied a numbe...
Union of India Vs. Pushpavati Chaudhry
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi422
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) In these two appeals, Union of India as well as the owner whose land had been acquired under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') have assailed the award of the learned Additional District Judge fixing compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 17,000.00 per bigha. The Union of India contends that the market value of the land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 4400.00 per bigha whereas the owner claims that the rate of compensation should be enhanced to Rs. 25,000.00 per bigha.(2) Raghbir Singh Chaudhry, husband of the appellant in R.F.A. 135- of 1965, owned onc-half share of land measuring 2 bighas 5 bids was comprised in field Nos: 438/44 and 440/43 situated in the estate of Kalu Sarai. This land was acquired by notification dated March 5, 1962 under section 4 of the Act for the 'Establishment of College of Engineering and Technology.'- The Land Acquisition Collector by his award No. 1312 fixed compensation of this l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »