Delhi Court November 1975 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Kailash Nath and Associates and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi426
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the imposition of house-tax by the New Delhi Municipal Committee on a building known as 'Kanchenjunga' in plot No. 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 as applicable to New Delhi for the year April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974. (2) The petitioners are a partnership firm and its partners, who, in collaboration with certain others claim to be engaged in the business of development and construction of multi-storeyed buildings. They have constructed and developed a multi-storeyed building known as Kanchenjunga located as aforesaid. The petitioners are also owners of an area measuring 1023 sq. ft. on the 10th floor of this building. It is admitted that the said building is situate within the jurisdiction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee. The petitioners on construction of the building applied for a completion certificate in the f...
Vidya Prakash Sethi Vs. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi605
Pritam Singh Safeer (1) This appeal is directed against the decree made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the 21st of October. 1969, by which the petitioner's suit for return of jewellery kept in safe custody with the respondent-bank or in the alternative for granting him a decree for its price which was claimed as being Rs. 32,397 with furniture interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till realisation, was dismissed.(2) We have heard the appeal at great length, and have carefully considered the contentions raised before us.(3) The plaintiff came to court alleging that he had entrusted the respondent-bank with one sealed box wrapped with white cloth and the box had 16 seals with the monogram HBS. The box was delivered to the respondent hank's branch in Rawalpindi city vide safe custody receipt No. 25/44 dated the 10th of October, 1944. It was specifically alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint that by accepting the safe deposit box for custody the respondent to this appeal...
M/S. the Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., Birla L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)259
ORDERT. V. R. Tatachari, C.J. - For orders, see C.W.P. No. 214 of 1968. 1976 CTR (Del.) 239...
Partap Singh Bhatia Vs. Kartar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi202
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 8th January, 1969, by which the court has allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-objections and modifying the decree of the court of first instance dated 30th July, 1966, finally dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.2. The dispute between the parties relates to allotment of property bearing No. XVI/5404, Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi, the ground floor of which was originally in possession of the defendant respondent while the first floor was in possession of the plaintiff appellant. The respondent's father owned another property adjoining the one in dispute in which the appellant's father was a tenant. The appellant has alleged that on or about 22nd January, 1957, an arrangement had been arrived at between the appellant and the respondent to the effect that the property in dispute be allotted to the app...
East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi225; [1976]38STC249(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against a notice dated February 2, 1974 issued to the petitioner by the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, New Delhi intimating to the petitioner that the assessment order in respect of the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 is proposed to be revised under Section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in exercise of suo mota powers of revision. The petitioner has been further called upon by the same notice to show cause why the assessments as indicated in the said notice be not revised. The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to issue the said notice and legality thereof.(2) The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and, inter alia, is engaged in the business of running hotels. One of the hotels run by it is the Oberoi...
Messrs East India Hotels Ltd., (Oberoi Inter-continental Hotel), Dr. Z ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)0051B
Prakash Narain, J. - This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against a notice dated February 2, 1974 issued to the petitioner by the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax New Delhi intimating to the petitioner that the assessment order in respect of the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 is proposed to be, revised under Section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the Act, exercise of suo motu powers of revision. The Petitioner has been further called upon by the same notice to show cause why the assessments as indicated in the notice be not revised. The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to issue the said notice and legality thereof.2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and, inter alia, is engaged in the business of running hotels. One of the hotels run by it is the Oberoi inter-Cont...
Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1975
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi189
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This case raises somewhat important questions of interpretation of certain provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations & Development) Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Rules, framed under the said Act-(2) The dispute relates to the rejection of the petitioner's application for the grant of a mining lease over an area comprising of 159.28 acres in Hulikatte Village of Chitradurga District in the State of Karnataka and the grant of the mining lease over the said area in favor of the third respondent. The State Government, Respondent No. 2 (then known as the State of Mysore) notified the aforesaid area by a notification dated June 4, 1970 as being open for grant of a mining lease. The said notification is purported to have been issued in pursuance of Rule 58 of the Rules. The third respondent and some others filed applications for grant of mining lease on July 4, 1970. The petit...
Harish Vohra Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi192
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Cr. Writs 133/75 and 134/75 also. The detenu involved in this petition (Dali Chand Vohra) as well as those in the other two petitions (Shyam Bihari Lal Sharma and Shri Kishan Sharma) arc partners of a firm known a,s Delhi Rajkot Enamel Works. The facts being the same it will be sufficient to state them in Cr. Writ 116 of 1975 alone.(2) An order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Delhi under section 3(l)(c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the MISA) on certain grounds, which he noticed later on 22-10-1974, which was quashed on 11-12-1974 by a Division Bench consisting of M.R.A. Ansari and V. D. Misra, JJ. The detenu was arrested for the second time .and detained under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA) on 6-3-1975 on the same facts : the same was quashed by the same Division B...
Kamal NaraIn Kapoor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1615
S. Rangarajan, J.1. Daya Shankar Kapoor (hereinafter referred as the detenu) was arrested and detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the MISA) on 24-9-1974 by the District Magistrate, Delhi, which order was quashed in Cr. Writ 37 of 1974 by a Division Bench of this Court (consisting of Tatachari and Ansarl, JJ.), reported in 2nd (1975) Delhi 492. On 4-2-1975 he was arrested and detained by the Delhi Administration under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the COFEPOSA), which order was quashed in Cr. Writ 12 of 1975 by a Division Bench of this Court (consisting of Prakash Narain and Ansari, JJ.) on 8-5-1975 (copy of the said order is Annexure G to this petition). After the COFEPOSA was amended by an Ordinance (later Act of 1975) the detenu was again arrested and detained by an order passed by the Ministry of Finance on 1-7-1975. But the declaration under Section 12-A of the ...
Arya Samaj Education Trust, Delhi and ors. Vs. the Director of Educati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi207
Deshpande, J. 1. Who are the 'minorities based on religion' under Article 30(1) of the Constitution qualitative and not merely numerically? To consider this question, not covered by authoritv. it is useful to read Article 30(1) which is as follows:'All minorities. whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.'2. The Arya Samai in this and in Civil Writ No. 111-0 of 1974 on the one hand and the Jains in Civil Writ 96 of 1975 and the Sikhs in Civil Writ 660 of 1974 on the other hand have claimed to be 'minorities based on religion' within the meaning of Article 30(1) . If the claim is proved, they would have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. They contend that certain provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed there under as also of certain circulars issued and administrative acts done in Pursuance of them are invalid to the extent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »