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.
Dwarka Dass Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1974
Reported in: [1974]97ITR541(Delhi)
Khanna, J.1. In compliance with the directions of this court, the Appellate Tribunal has referred under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, -1957, the following question for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to determine the valuation of 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, at Rs. 10 lakhs as on the valuation date, i.e., 23rd June, 1963?'2. Sri Dwarka Dass, the assessed, holds on lease from the Government, the property known as 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, standing on a plot of land measuring 1.327 acres or 6,453 sq. yards. 30% of the area is constructed upon. While 35% of the covered area is self-occupied the remaining 65% of the covered area has been let out and is in occupation of tenants. For the assessment year 1964-65, the relevant valuation date being June 23, 1963, the petitioner returned the value of the said property at Rs. 5 lakhs, which was the accepted value for the assessment years 1961-62 to...
Hari Shankar Vs. Bhoori Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT159
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a petition for revision against the order of the trial court dated 28th July, 1973, holding that the plaintiff has proved the case for attachment before judgment and has allowed an application dated 11th September, 1972, directing the defendant petitioner to furnish security in the sum of Rs 15,000/ by 20th August, 1973, and Failing in it, the petitioner's property mentioned in the application that is jewellery at his shop situated at Bhiwani worth Rs. 15,000.00 was to be attached before judgment. The defendant petitioner being aggrieved has come to this .Court for setting aside the afore- said order. To appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to state a few facts. (2) On 11th September. 1972, the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 10,8'00.00 under the sumnury procedure of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and along with it the aforesaid application for attachment bifore judgment was also filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of th...
Mohinder Singh Jagdev Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation and Po ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT243; 1974RLR542
Paraksh Narian, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed a suit in forma pauperis claiming a declaration that the termination of his services with the respondent Government is wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional and so, the plaintiff continues to be in services and a decree for Rs. 84,000.00 out of which the plaintiff claims Rs. 40,000.00 by way of salary. Rs. 40,000/by way of damages and Rs 4,000.00 by way of expenses allegedly incurred by the plaintiff to defend himself in a criminal prosecution alleged to have been commenced on a report of defendant No. 2. (2) According to the plaint the plaintiff was appointed as a Supervisor on 8th June 1954 by defendant No. 2, the Chairman, Central Water and power Commission, New Delhi, which post he claims he held up to October 11, 1954 when he submitted his resignation. He joined the Central Public Works Department as Section Officer in August, 1956, Shri N.D. Tekchandani, the then Executive Engineer, Central Water and Power Commission posted at Bhopal...
Bindra Watch Company Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi219
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) These three Civil Revision Petitions, Nos. 239, 240. and 241 of 1973, can be disposed of by a common judgment.(2) The petitioners in the three Revision Petitions are (1) Bindra Watch Company, (2) Tara Singh and another, and (3) Dass and Company respectively. The respondents in all the three Revision Petitions are the same, viz. (1) Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Board and (2) Jathedar Santokh Singh. (3) The facts which have given rise to these Revision Petitions are as follows. Each of the petitioners was a tenant of a separate premises (shop) belonging to the Shromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (now Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Board). The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee) through the second respondent filed on November 21, 1968, three applications against the three petitioners respectively under Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for eviction of the petitioners from their respective premises. Even before the petiti...
Masco Private Limited Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ29Del
H.L. Anand, J.1. This appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act' is directed against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Delhi, on a petition under Section 77 of the Act for a direction to the respondent and raises the question as to the construction of Section 45A of the Act, and as to the extent of the power of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation', to make an ad hoc determination of liability of an employer under the Act.2. By a petition under Section 77 of the Act, the appellant, an employer within the meaning of the Act, challenged the legality, validity and the correctness of the demand of Rs. 6,950.54 made by the Corporation by notice for the recovery of the amount under Section 73D of the Act which was issued by the Regional Director of the Corporation to the Collector of Delhi seeking its realisation as arrears of land revenue. The petition was grounded on the allegati...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi265
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) By this judgment five writ petitions (Nos. 7, 8, 162, 176 and 177 of 1974) are being disposed of. In all these cases the question involved is as to whether the present Sub-Divisional Magistrates in Delhi can be regarded to have been specially empowered for purposes of sections 56 and 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi. In three of the petitions the question regarding the extent of their jurisdiction for passing orders of externment under the said provisions was as well raised.(2) It is necessary to state certain facts. As it was proposed to take action against Suraj Pal alias Kau and Vijay Kumar under sections 56 and 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 as extended with certain modifications to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter called 'the Act'), Shri P. N. Gupta, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamla Market, issued notices under section 59 of the Act. Notice issued to Suraj Pal was dated November 24, 1973 and the notic...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Parag Vanaspati Products
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT255; ILR1974Delhi150
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) M/S. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., (hereinafter called 'the appellants') have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing their suit for injunction and rendition of accounts against M!s. Parag Vanaspati Products (hereinafter called 'the respondents' ).(2) The appellant Company runs a factory known as D.C.M. Vanaspati Manufacturing Works, Delhi and manufactures Vanaspati Ghee which is sold in containers bearings a label having the picture of a lady with a pitcher on her head moving away from a well underneath a tree and another lady with a pitcher on her head standing in thg background of a well fitted with pulley and rope for drawing water. Under the device the word 'PANGHAT' appears in bold letters. The said device as well as the word 'PANGHAT' is the registered trade mark of the appellants which they have been using ever since they commenced the production of Vanaspati about 12 years before the filing of the suit. The ...
Abnash Kaur Vs. Avinash Nayyar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi46; 10(1974)DLT270; 1974RLR437
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) While a petition by the landlord (Respondent No. 1) for the eviction of the tenant (petitioner) on the ground of non-payment of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) was pending for some time, the landlord went to inspect the premises and is said to have found that the premises had been substantially damaged by the tenant.(2) He, thereforee, applied for an amendment of the petition for eviction with a view to add another ground for the eviction of the tenant under clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14' namely, that the tenant has caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises. The Rent controller allowed the petition to be amended apparently because only an additional ground to claim the same relief of eviction was being added. The tenant (petitioner) has filed this petition under Article 227 of the constitution alleging that th...
Panchsheel Electronic Corporation Vs. Jupitor General Insurance Co. Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT79; 1974RLR453
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The main question referred to us for consideration is whether the mistake of law on the part of the appellant's counsel amounted to 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act for not preferring the appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class in this court within the prescribed period of limitation and incidentally whether the analogy of section 14 of the said Act is applicable to the determination of the above question inasmuch as the mistake of the counsel consisted in at first filing the appeal in the court of Senior sub-Judge who ultimately returned the memo of appeal to the appellant for presentation. to this court with the consequent loss of the time resulting in the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) An application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the plaintiff-appellant in the court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class and was registered as a suit for the purpose of court fee which was cor...
iqbal Singh Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway Etc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi359; 1975LabIC295
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of two civil writ petitions Nos. 133 of 1970 and 134 of 1970. They raise a common question of law. They came up for consideration before a learned Single I Judge of this Court and were referred by his lordship to a Division Bench and the Division Bench by order dated 12th May, 1971 has considered it fit to refer them to a still larger Bench subject to the approval of Hon'bic the Chief Justice. In this way these petitions have been placed before us for disposal. THEfacts as given in the referring order of the Division Bench are that the petitioners in both the writ petitions joined Railway Service in the year 1949 as booking clerks in the grade of Rs. 60-150. In the year 1957, they were promoted as Reservation Clerks in the same grade which was later on revised to Rs. 100-185 and then to Rs. 150-240. They were both confirmed on those posts in the year 1958. Subsequently on 27th June, 1963, Iqbal Singh (petitioner m the first noted writ petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »