Delhi Court March 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.
indraj and ors. Vs. the Collector, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi153
ORDER1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who claim to have been in possession of the land in dispute for over 20 years as tenants under the Delhi Development Authority and its predecessor-in-office, the Delhi Improvement Trust, assail the proceedings taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', against the petitioners as indeed the order made in it by the Estate Officer, direction the eviction of the petitioners and of the Additional District Judge upholding the said order in appeal.2. The proceedings and the impugned orders are assailed on the grounds that the notice issued to the petitioners under Section 4(1) of the Act of show cause why the petitioners be not evicted does of conform to the statutory requirements of Section 4(1) of the Act and the petitioners were denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard in that the Estate Officer declined to make ...
ishar Das Vs. the Administer, Union Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi233
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The tenant is the petitioner win) is aggrieved by the order dated 8-1-1973 of the Assistant Coininissioncr with the powers of Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Ocarance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act;, granting permission to take proceedings to evict him from the business premises, bearing No. 1066, Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi.(2) Having found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties the Competent Authority went further to find that the alleged sub-letting was true-which is a question to be decided by the Rent Controller. He granted permission to the landlord/ respondcnt(s) to evict him from the said premises but without giving any specific finding as required by section 19(4) of the Act on the tenant's ability to find alternative accommodation within his means if he were evicted, an aspect to which I have made more detailed reference in Kirath Chand v. P. R. Varshneya and others I.L.R.1971 Delhi 405 0)...
Sales Tax Commissioner and ors. Vs. Harbans Motor Stores and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC67(Delhi)
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and three others against the judgment of the. learned single Judge of this Court, dated 27th September, 1972, passed in C.W. No. 285 of 1970.2. Before the learned single Judge a notice dated 10th March, 1970 (annexure E to the writ petition) purporting to have been issued under Section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was challenged on the ground that it was barred by time.3. The learned single Judge felt bound by the previous decision of this Court in the case of S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delh Civil Writs Nos. 388-D and 460-D of 1960 decided on 2nd April, 1969 (Delhi High Court), delivered by Hardy, J., and accepted the writ petition and held that the aforesaid notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, has to be held invalid after 31st March, 1970. The assessment year...
Raj NaraIn Aggarwal Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi749; 1976LabIC131
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a writ of mandamus to restrain the relevant authorities under the Employees Provident Fund Act from enforcing and applying the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Scheme framed there under to the petitioners undertakings, namely, the ice factory and the cold storage at Sabzi Mandi, Delhi and to quash whatever notices, letters or orders have been issued informing the petitioner that the said undertakings are so covered under the Act and the Scheme or threatening further proceedings in pursuance of the same with a view to recover the employer's contribution under the said Act including the launching of penal action in case of failure to comply with the same etc. (2) It is common ground that an ice factory did not come prior to 1969. within the mischief of Section 1(3)(a) of the Act. The Act is applicable to every establishment which is a factory engag...
Gauri Shankar Gupta Vs. the Financial Commissioner and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi759; 1975RLR413
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The question referred to the Full Bench is whether section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (simply called the 'Act' hereafter applies to a building which is used for a purpose other than residential.(2) The petitioner landlord obtained an order for the eviction of the Respondent No. 2 tenant from a premises which is situated in a slum area. He filed a petition under section 19(l)(b) of the Act before the Competent Authority for permission to execute the order of evic- tion. The permission was refused by the Competent Authority. The said order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner in an appeal filed by the petitioner under section 20 of the Act. The petitioner thereup- on filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution with a view to get the said orders set aside.(3) The main ground on which the validity of the orders refusing the permission has been impugned is that section 19 of the Act protects from eviction only th...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Jagan Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1599
1. From the shop of Messrs. Janta Sudh Masala Store at No. 489/20B, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, Shri Prem Parkash Sinha, a Food Inspector, took on October 22, 1971, at about 12.45 P. M. a sample of ginger for the purpose of getting it analysed. He purchased 450 grams of that article on payment of Rs. 3.05 to Jagan Nath. who was present in the shop and selling goods. On one part of the sample being analysed by the Public Analyst it was reported to be adulterated. On the basis of that report Jagan Nath, Ram Chand, Subhash Chand and Messrs. Janta Sudh Masala Store were prosecuted. All the accused were, however, acquitted by Shri B.L. Anand, Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Against the order of acquittal dated September 11, 1972 the present appeal was filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi2. It may be mentioned that Jagan Nath, Ram Chand and Subhash Chand were alleged to be partners of the firm Messrs Janta Sudh Masala Store located at 489/20B, Gandhi Nagar. Jagan Nath, who had so...
Mahender Nath Gupta Vs. Moti Ram Rattan Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi155
1. These are execution appeals against the order of the Additional District Judge Delhi. The facts in all the cases are similar. I will first take Execution Second Appeal No, 4 of 1973.2. Mohinder Nath, appellant, instituted a suit for specific performance against M/s. Moti Ram Rattan Chand, respondents, for specific performance. This suit was instituted in June, 1963, in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi. He decreed the suit on August 31, 1968, A decree for specific performance was passed in favor of the appellant 3. The appellant made an application for execution of the decree. He prayed for the delivery of possession of the plot of land which he had agreed to buy from the respondents. The res7aondents made an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the executing court. Their sole objection was that the appellant was not entitled to get Possession of the property as no such relief was granted to him by the Court and as none was asked for in the plaint i...
Ratlam Straw Board Mills Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi270
ORDER1. The Plaintiff through this suit has prayed for a decree against the defendants to the effect that by the non-acceptance of the advance sample by the defendants the contract of supply dated 4th June, 1968, had come to an end. The plaintiff further seeks a declaration that thn breach of the contract was on the part of the defendants and that defendants are not entitled to recover an amount from them. A further declaration is sought to the effect that it bp heidt that there is no valid contract between the parties as the offer made by the plaintiff was not specially accepted by the defendants and defendants be restirined form effecting any recovery from the Plaintiff.2. Contract dated 4th June, 1968, for supply of paper water-proof Bitumen in (size) of 36' to the specification No. IND-ME/577(a) was included between the parties. By letter dated 16th June,1968, the chief Inspector of Military Explosives substituted the above said specification by specification NO. JSS-1212. On plain...
Bharat Finance Co. Vs. Shakuntala Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi108
Avadh Behari, J. (1) This is an illustrative case. It brings out clearly the rights of a prospective purchaser of immovable property against an attaching creditor who attaches that very property before it is conveyed to the purchaser in performance of a contract of sale.(2) The undisputed facts are these. There is a property bearing No. J-2/7, Krishan Nagar, Delhi-31. One V. P. Kapoor was the owner of this property. He entered into an agreement of sale with Shakuntala Devi. Shakuntala Devi was a tenant in this property. The agreement was entered into on November 26, 1968. It provided that Kapur will sell this propperty to Shakuntala Devi for Rs. 15.000.00 . Shakuntala Devi paid Rs. 10,000.00 there and then. The balance was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. Shakuntala Devi was already in possession of the property as a tenant, as I have said.(3) On August 5, 1970, Bharat Finance Co. a creditor of Kapur obtained decree for Rs. 17,700.00 and costs against Kapur....
Sriniwas Pandit Vs. S. Jagjeet Singh Sawhney and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR20(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved by the Union of India, through the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Delhi, New Delhi, as an interlocutory application in a proceeding to which neither the Union of India nor the Commissioner of Income-tax is a party. The application raises very substantial and important question regarding the interpretation of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is necessary to state that the application has been moved in the course of the execution proceedings which are pending in this court in which one Shri Sriniwas Pandit is the decree-holder and S. Jagjeet Singh Sawhney and S. Gurcharan Singh Sawhney, who are brothers, are the judgment-debtors.2. I may shortly state the facts of the case to the extent necessary for deciding this application. A decree was obtained by the said decree-holder against the judgment-debtors from the civil court of Badayun (U.P.), whichwas transferred to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »