Delhi Court September 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.
Chakravarti Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1974
Reported in: 1976RLR11
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) Petitioners, Respdt 5 & 6 were displaced persons from Pakistan. They were occupying property which was evacuee (Saleable). Petitioners asked for allotment of the same but the department ordered its sale by auction. Respondent 6 filed Writ against order of sale. It was dismissed on 27.4.65. In sale notice property was wrongly described as at 'Faizganj instead of at Faiz Road. Auction took place on 12.9.66. Bid of Respdt. 6 was highest. On 22.8.67, Asst. Settlement Commissioner, Mr. S.P. Sud, accepted objections that there was material irregularity in sale and substantial injury took place and ordered re-auction to begin from the bid of objector who should deposit 20% of the bid as security. The security was not deposited and sale did not take place. Petitioner 1 & 2 Respdt 5 filed writag ainst auction. In reply affidavit. Chief Settlement Commissioner had stated that Mr. S.P. Sud had set aside the sale on 22.8.67. Respdt. 6 also stated this claiming that the Writ h...
Parma Nand Vs. Kamla Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR35
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' is directed against an order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dismissing appeal under Section 38 of the Act against an order of the learned Rent Controller by which the appellant's plea for condensation of delay in payment of court fees was rejected. (2) The respondent herein, the landlady, sought eviction of the appellant, the tenant. from the premises in dispute on various grounds and in the course of the reply filed to the application by the appellant, the appellant, while resisting the eviction action on various grounds, set up a plea about the fixation of the standard rent of the premises in dispute. It is not disputed that in view of the fact that the eviction action was not based on default of payment of rent, the plea of the appellant for fixation of standard rent was tantamount in law to an application for fixation of standard rent and, thereforee...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Shambhu Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR152
Avadh Behari, J.(1) Respondent shambu Nath is the owner of house No. 720-702, Chowri Bazar, Delhi. He has let that house to two tenants. One of the tenants is Lakshmi Shankar and other is Bata Shoe Co. The landlord owner, namely, the respondent has not taken any water connection in his own name in this house. The tenant Lakshmi Shanker has taken one water connection in the portion of his tenancy in bids own name for his own use. (2) The appellant, Municipal Corporation of Delhi demanded from the respondent water tax. They served a notice dated 1lth of March 1966 claiming a sum of Rs. 184,98 by way of water tax in respect of this property. The respondent refused to pay on the ground that since there was a water connection in the property and Lakshmi Shankar was paying water bills in accordance with the consumption of water by him the landlord was not liable to pay the water tax. (3) On llth May, 1966, the respondent instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against appellant corporatio...
Amar Nath Vs. Harbans Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR207
Avadh Behari, J. (1) Appellant had agreed to buy respondent's plot in suit for Rs. 8,000.00. Bargain was struck by parties through their agents. Respondent bought stamp paper and dictated terms on it through a typist. She then representing that she had forgotten to bring certificate of title went home to bring but never returned. Appellant sued her and got a decree. It was reversed in 1st appeal. He then filed 2nd appeal. Para 20 onwards, the judgment is : (2) The decision of this appeal turns on a short question and it is this. Are the terms of the contract uncertain with regard to the expenses of the sale Is it not clear from. the record that the respondent was to bear the expenses of the sale (3) The respondent had agreed to convey to the appellant her plot No. 23 measuring 287.77 square yards situated in Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, for the consideration of Rs. 8,000.00. The balance sum of Rs. 7,000.00 was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar, Rs. 1,000.00 having been received by the respon...
The Sales Tax Officer and ors. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi357; [1976]37STC356(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) Clause (3) of Article 286 of the Constitution enacts that 'any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in interstate trade or commerce, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may by law specify.' Accordingly, selection 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Central Act) lays down the restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a state in the following words : 'EVERYsales tax law of a state shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely : (A)the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall ...
Dina Nath and Sons and anr. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: [1976]37STC356a(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. Clause (3) of Article 286 of the Constitution enacts that 'any law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of a special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may by law specify'. Accordingly, Section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Central Act), lays down the restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State in the following words:Every sales tax law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely:-- (a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall...
Hari Shankar Bhargaya Vs. Mohan Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi82
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This case raises an interesting question of law regarding the registration of an arbitration award made with the intervention of the court on which there is scant authority in our law books in recent years.(2) On August 9, 1958, a partnership business was started for colonising and sale of plots. Dalip Singh, Raghbir Singh, Net Ram, Hari Shankar Bhargava, Mattu Mal Gupta and Moti Ram were the original partners. Dalip Singh separated from the partnership. Remaining partners continued the partnership business and a new deed of partnership was executed on October 9, 1958. This partnership business was known and styled as Shankar Housing Corporation.(3) Raghbir Singh and Net Ram were the sole owners of the land which formed Shankar Garden. The land was divided in two blocks block A and B. Raghbir Singh and Net Ram agreed to transfer their rights in the said land to the partnership for purpose of its development and sale of plots.(4) Some plots of land were sold to purch...
Sukhdev Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR625
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition has come up on account of a recommendation made by learned A.S.J., Delhi by order dt. 27-5-74. (2) The petitioner a Surety, had filed an appeal against an order made on 17-8-1973, directing that the sum of Rs. 3,000.00 be realized from him because the bail bond executed for keeping an accused, T.N. Mathur on bail had been forfeited. That appeal came up before Shri K.B. Andley, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi. He took up the appeal on 15th of November, 1973, for disposal and finding that nobody had turned up for urging it dismissed the same for want of prosecution. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order by which the appeal had been dismissed and it was contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appeal should have been disposed of on merits. (3) I have perused section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and am of the view that the Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have dismissed the appeal at 1 p.m. He was to...
Amar Nath Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT142; 1975RLR38
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This is an appeal against the award of the arbitrator Shri G. R. Luthra dated 24th February, 1965, appointed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act), The appellants are the owners of a property known as dharamshaia. This property is situated opposite Qutab Minar, Mehrauli and bears Municipal No. H5/1 to H5/12. The respondent the Union of India, requisitioned this property on 15th of March, 1962, under the Act. On 3rd of September, 1962 the respondent derequisitioned that part of the property which bears No. H5/12. The possession of the remaining property T-15/1 to H5/11 was taken on the 19th September, 1962. The property was requisitioned for the students of Maulana Azad Medical College. The owners say that now the property is being used to house mentally retarded persons.(2) Compensation could not be fixed by agreement of the partics. The appellants claimed Rs. 1241.66 per month as compensation. The resp...
inder Nath Anandm Vs. Harbans Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT89
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.(1) This petition is directed against an order made by the trial court on the 31st of May, 1974, by which the petitioner's application under order 26, rule 4 read with order 16 rule l9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter called 'the Code').was dismissed.(2) I have perusedthatapplication. It is stated there in that the payment of Rs. 280/ was made to the decree-holder through one Banarsi Lal, whose address is C/o Messrs Bansi Lal Banarsi Lal, Petrol Pump, Dhamtari, District Raipur (Madhya Pradesh). It is contended that the said payment was also mentioned in the objections filed by the judgmentdel for.(3) I have read the objectins. In paragraph 5 of the objection it is stated :- 'Th The averment means that three payments were made in the presence of Banar Lal The first on' was of Rs 200.00 , the second one was of Rs. 40.00 and the third one also of Rs. 40.00 . All the three payments were allegedly made in 1965. In the application, which was dismissed by the i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›