Delhi Court April 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.
Sunder Lal and Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR381
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition No. 128 arises out of trial of case no. 721/3 of 1970. It is connected with Cr.R. 129 of 1972. Petitioners in the two are Sunder Lal and Nand Lal & Co. (2) This judgment will dispose of both. Sunder Lal was functioning at 918, Gali Chah Sharin, Farash Khana when he was approached by Food Inspector B. R. Kochar on the 23rd of September, 1970, who after disclosing his identity expressed that he wanted to purchase a sample of compounded hing. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of compounded hing on payment of Rs. 6.00 Exhibit P.A., the receipt, pertained to the said purchase. On being analysed, the compounded hing was found adulterated. On receiving the report of the Public Analyst Exhibit P. E. a complaint was filed under section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter called 'the Act'), The adulteration found was :- '...THEsame is sdulterated due to 0.79 excess in total ash per cent and 0.04 excess in ash insoluble in dilute hydrochl...
Munni/Jaswant Kaur Vs. Bhonrl Devi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR583
B.C. Misra, J. (1) [ONE Mohanlal took on lease plot of land for 15 years w.e.f. 1.9.49. He put up structures on the same. On the expiry of 15 years, Respondent I sued him for eviction on 26.5.69. He died on 3-1-70 and all his Lrs from 2 widows were brought an record. Report of service of the petitioner was 'refusal.' It was deemed a sufficient service. Some L.R's appeared and suit was decreed on 15-5-71. Petitioner's mother then made an application for setting aside of exparte decree. Petitioner did not join her. Application was dismissed. Petitioner then filed instant suit for setting aside of the decree and applied for interim injunction under 0.39 Rules 1&2 and S. 151, Civil Procedure Code . Trial Court held that plaintiff had no prima facie case. 1st appellate Court held that order appealed against was made u/s 151 and was not appealable. Petitioner moved High Court.]. Para 6 onwards, judgment is ',- (2) The principles for the grant of temporary injunction are well-settled. In orde...
Prabhudayal Bhai Gava Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT261
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the acquisition of 2 Bighas and 2 bids was of land bearing Khasra No. 333/1 situated in village Bahapur, opposite okhla Railway Station, New Delhi. The notification under section 4 of the ' and Acquisition Act was issued on l8th November, 1969 and declaration under section 6 was issued on 24th March, 962. The award for compensation has been made by the Collector on 25th September, 1962. (2) The petitioner has challenged the acquisition by this writ petition on the ground that Basant Lal and Manohar Lal were previously two owners of the land in dispute. On 10th February, 1958, Manohar Lal sold his land in dispute along with other pieces of land to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7500 .00 and Basant Lal sabsequently on 25thFebruary,1958 sold his share in the land to the petitioner for another sum of Rs. 75,000.00 . In this way the petitioners become owner of the land in dispute along with other land for Rs.l,50,000.00 . The petiti...
Dhiren Kiri Vs. Suraj Balram Sawhney and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT211
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) What is the meaning of 'procedure'? Is Order Xxx rule-I Civil Procedure Code 'procedure' or substantive law The question arises in this way. (2) The petitioner Dr. Dhiren Kiri is a tenant of the respondent firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act named M/s Suraj Balra Sawhney and Sons. The firm filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the premises under the-proviso:to section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter cled 'the Act) Section 37(2) ofthe Act requires the Controller to follow as-far as may be, the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causos in holding the enquiry under the Act. This procedure is followed by,the Controller - under the Act unless the Act provides differently. As the Act is silent as to how a petition under section 14 should be filed by a partnership film, the petition for eviction was filed in .accordance with the provisions of Order Xxx of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order Xxx rule 1(1) express...
Mithan Lal Vs. Sultan Singh Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi375
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of two connected appeals: R.F.A, 95-D/63 (Mithan Lal v. Sultan Singh etc.) and R.F.A. 98-D/64 (Mithan Lal v. Maya Rani etc.) which arise out of two consolidated suits. Both these suits were dismissed by a common judgment and decree, dated 30th March, 1973, passed by a Subordinate Judge, First, Class, Delhi: The Plaintiff, Mithan Lal, claimed a decree for possession by pre-emption of property bearing Municipal Nos. 1744-1745 and 1747-1748 which is a double storeyed building in two separate suits; one relating to ground floor and the other relating to first floor.. So far as the suit for ground floor was concerned, it related to a sale by respondent Sumati Devi, in favow of Sultan Singh for Rs. 6,0001- and so far as the suit relating to firs; floor was concerned, that related to a sale by the same vendor in favor of Maya Rani, wife of Sultan Singh, for Rs. 4,000/ The plaintiff-appellant's case regarding ground floor was that Sumati Devi ...
Mam Raj Vs. Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT227; 1974RLR428
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a second appeal against the judgment of Shri 0. P. Singia, Additional District Judge, Delhi, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 29th November, 1971, and remanding the case to the trial court for decision on merits. (2) The plaintiffs filed asuit No. 381/70 in a civil Court for declaration to the effect that they were the bhoomidars to the exclusion of the defendants with respect to the land situated in villages Maujpur Babarpur and Karkardooma, Illaqa Shahdra, Union Territory of Delhi, as per khasra numbers mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed to be in possession of the land and sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the lawful possessi of the plaintiffs. The claim of the plaintiffs was based on the ground that their father, Chet Ram, son of Kalu, had been declared bhoomidar of the land in dispute. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs-respondents that their fat...
Fitwell Engineers Vs. Financial Commissioner, Delhi Administration and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC66(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. The decision of this and the connected six writ petitions depends on the construction of Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as applied to Delhi (hereinafter called the Act) reproduced below :5. (1) The tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be levied (on taxable turnover)....(2) In this Act the expression 'taxable turnover' means that part of a dealer's gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting there from-(a) his turnover during that period on....(ii) sales to a registered dealer of goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of such dealer, as being intended for resale by him, or for use by him as raw materials in the manufacture of goods for sale ; and of containers or other materials for the packing of goods of the class or classes so specified for sale :Provided that in the case of such sales a declaration duly filled up and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Krishan Mohan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT285; [1974]96ITR432(Delhi); 1974RLR626
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) In compliance with the directions of this court under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', has drawn up a consolidated statement of the case and referred the following question to us for opinion: 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of assessed's right to acquire further equity shares which right he renounced in favor of his minor daughter was not fticludible in assessed's net wealth under section 4(l)(a)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' THErelevant assessment years are 1958-59 to 1962-63 and the valuation dates corresponding thereto are the last dates of the respective preceding calendar years- Krishan Mohan, the assessed, was a share-holder in Motor General Finance Limited. The said company proposed to increase its subscribed capital by allotment of further spares which it offerd to the xisting share holder.the assessed became entitled...
Mehboob Productions (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Morion Pictures Association and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT299
Avadh Behari, J. (1) Motion Pictures Association of Delhi is an company incorporated under section 25 of the Companies Act. It is non-profit making body consisting of produceps, distributors and exhibitors. Its members operate in. Delhi and U.P. It is a voluntary association. Its avowed object is:. 'To look after the welfare of all such persons or class of persons who are engaged in production, exhibition or distribution of films in India, particularly by safeguarding their rights and titles,-trademarks, trade-names and copy rights.' (2) It has also an adjudicatory function. It settles disputes between the members of the association between all persons engaged in production, distribution and exhibition in Indian Film Industry and arbitrates among such contesting parties. Many exhibitors and distributors are its members. The counsel says its membership is in the neighborhood of 1100 or so. (3) Mehboob Productions (P.) Ltd, are engaged in the production of films. Their registered office ...
Balbir Singh Vs. Manmohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi96
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi confirming that of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 15(1) of the Act.(2) The premises in dispute were let out to the appellant by late Shrimati Tara H. K. Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 900.00 . Subsequently on the death of the landlady the respondent herein, one of the heirs of the landlady, filed an application for the eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground that the appellant had failed to pay rent legally recoverable from him notwithstanding the expiry of the period of two months from the service of notice of demand in that behalf. The application was resisted by the appellant inter alia, on the ground that the application was not maintainable in the absence of other heirs of the landlady; that no notice of demand had been served on the appellant; that after ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »