Delhi Court September 1975 Judgments

Ex-servicemen Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Sumey Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1976Delhi181

ORDER1. This judgment is by way of postscript. 2. On January 18, 1971, the plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance against the defendant. Specific performance was sought in respect of agricultural land measuring 48 bighas and 10 bids was owned by the defendant in village Khampur, Sub-Tehsil Mehrauli. The defendant had agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff. As he did not convey the property the plaintiff brought the suit. 3. On November 1, 1973, before T. P. S. Chawla J the parties reached a compromise. The terms were reduced, to writing. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise.4. The term of the compromise was that the plaintiff will pay Rs. 50,000 over the original agreed price of Rupees 66,100 which he had already paid to the defendant. The total consideration for the sale of the property was thereforee agreed at Rs. 1,16,100 at the time of the compromise.5. In terms of the compromise the plaintiff deposited Rs. 50,000 in the Reserve Bank of India on December 25,...

Krishan Kanahya and anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1976Delhi184; ILR1976Delhi251

T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the transfer of Execution Case No. 166 of 1971, Radhey Sham v. M/s. Badri Dass Radhey Lal pending in the Court of Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi to the Court of some other Subordinate Judge of coordinate jurisdiction. The petitioners are Shri Krishan Kanahya and Shri Vijay Kumar, minor sons of Shri Ramesh Chand, through their mother and next friend, Shrimati Shakuntala Devi. The respondents are (1) Shri Vijay Kumar, (2) Shri Balkishan, and (3) M/s. Badri Dass Radhey Lal to be served through Shri Ramesh Chand, father of the two minor petitioners, and proprietor of M/s. Badri Dass Radhey Lal.(2) It appears that Shri Radhey Sham, father of respondents 1 and 2, obtained a decree against respondent 3, and in execution thereof sought to attach certain properties as belonging to the judgment-debtor. The petitioners filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of...

Rama Devi Vs. K.A. Gafoor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1976Delhi72

S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This Order is made not only in Cr. Writ 37 of 1975 but also in Cr. Writs 40, 45. 46, 50. 51, 52, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 65. 66, 70, 71, 72. 77, 79, 85, 86, 90. 91, 92, 96, 100, 101, 106, & 107, all of 1975, where the question of jurisdiction has been argued.(2) The question of the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to enterain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of issuing a writ of Haheas Corpus or other needed direction in the case of those detenus who are detained in some of the States of India outside the union Territory of Delhi, has arisen for determination in these Writ Petitions.(3) Without going into the detailed averments made in each of these petitions, in which a question of jurisdiction has been argued, these petitions may be classified into three broad categories : (1)Where an order of detention under section 3 has been made and a person is detained outside the union Territory of Delhi coupled with a declaration under secti...

R.K. Varma and ors. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1976Delhi125

Prakash Narain, J.(1) The petitioners by moving this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to challenge the appointment of the third respondent S. K. Kapoor, as Private Secretary to the General Manager (E), Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. According to them Kapoor has been appointed to the post of a Private Secretary illegally by an Order passed by the fourth respondent the former General Manager, who was not competent to make the appointment. It is also urged that the appointment has been made mala fide and as an act of favoritism shown to Kapoor. The petitioners contend that they were not considered for the appointment of Private Secretary to the General Manager and this amounts to discrimination attracting Article 16 of the Constitution. It is further urged that the petitioners if they had been considered would have been found more suitable for the posthan Kapoor. (2) The petitioners, R. K. Varina, M. L. Sachdeva and 0. P. ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Cold Storage and Refrigeratio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1976]103ITR455(Delhi)

M.R.A. Ansari, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '):'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessed-company is entitled to claim depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of building, machinery and plant of the Crown Flour Mills, Delhi ?' 2. M/s. Hindustan Cold Storage and Refrigeration (P.) Ltd., Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed-company'), is a subsidiary of M/s. Meatles Ltd., Delhi, which is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. M/s. Meatles Ltd. originally carried on two distinct businesses, namely :(i) the business of speculation in shares and other commodities, and (ii) the business of flour milling in its factory known as Crown Flour Mills.3. As it was incurring losses in its specula...

Ram Chand Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1976Delhi188

ORDER1. Certain lands including the land, belonging to the petitioner in Mauza Tihar were acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1,894. Notification under Section 4 was issued on February 13, 1967. Notification under Section 6 was issued on December 17, 19,64. After the usual proceedings contemplated. by Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Collector made Award No. 1916 dated August 10, 1966 and forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner, i.e. the Collector of the District for information and filing of the award,. This was done on December 5, 1966. After the award had been filed, further action was to be taken on it.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the time when the award was announced under Section 12(1). Accordingly, it became incumbent upon the Collector to give notice of the award to persons interested including the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act. It is said on behalf of the respon...

L.K.R.Al. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal by Shri L.K.R. Alagappa Chettiar against the order of the learned Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, imposing on him a penalty of Rs. 10,000 for contravention of the provisions of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (the Act). 2. The case for the department is as follows. On the basis of certain information, the premises of the appellant were searched but no documents or other material were seized. However, on interrogation, he admitted to the Enforcement Officers that before coming to India in March, 1968, he handed over a sum of $ 6,000 to a party in Malaysia with instructions that he should be given Rs. 20,000 in India and that this sum was, accordingly, received by him. The motive for resorting to this transaction is the gain of Rs. 5,000 which would accrue by resort to unauthorised channels. 3. However, during the course of adjudication proceedings, the appellant denied that the statement was genuine and voluntary. Nevertheless, ...

K.K. Birla Vs. the Press Council of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1976Delhi753

S.S. Chadha, J. (1) An Act to establish a Press Council for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and oF maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India was enacted by Parliament, being Press Council Act 1965 (Act 34 of 1965), (hereinafter called the 'Act'). In furtherance or its object the Press Council is empowered to help newspapers and news agencies to maintain their independence. The Jurisdiction of the Press Council was invoked by two complaints under sections 12(2) (a) and (e) of the Act. What is the meaning and scope of the terms 'Freedom of Press', Independence of Newspapers' and the Independence of the Editor of a Newspaper' is one of the interesting questions which goes to the 'out of the jurisdiction of the Press Council that has arisen in this case. (2) On November 4, 1974. respondent 27, Shri D. R. Mankekar, addressed a complaint to the Press Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Press Council') under section 12(2)...

Puran and ors. Vs. Angoori

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1976Delhi337

Avadh Behart, J.(1) These are custody proceedings. This case is concerned with a conflict between, on the one hand, the natural and lawful parent and, on the other hand, more remote relatives of an infant.(2) First the facts. The respondent Smt. Angoori, was married to one Hari Chand in or about 1961. This marriage is admitted on all hands. Hari Chand was the son of his father Puran and Mohrali his mother. Hari Chand died on May 14. 1965. Thereafter a male child was born to Angoori on September 28, 1965. His name is Kartare (I will call him 'K'). He is today ten years of age.(3) K was born to Angoori at the place of one Shankar with whom she had started living. Shankar is a married man fairly advanced in years. On his own showing he is about 60 years of age. His previous wife is living. She is a woman of about 55. They have two chi'dren- a son and a daughter. The son is about 23 years of age. He :s married. He has three children. His eldest child is 7 years of age. Shankar's daughter i...

Bhatnagar and Co. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1976RLR36

H.L. Anand, J.(1) Petitioner Co. was issued 8 licenses during 1963-67. On 1-1-72, a show cause notice was issued that licenses were not properly utilized. A writ, being C.W. 999/72 was filed. Appellate authority meanwhile set aside debarring order as there was no proper opportunity. Petition became infructuous. Petitioner was given fresh show cause notice. He repeatedly asked for reports on which the notice was based. His requests were neither accepted nor rejected and he carried impression that these were under consideration He received debarring order in which it was mentioned that giving reports was not necessary, as he knew the basis on which the reports were based. Petitioner filed writ. After giving above facts in detail, Judgment para 4 onwards is :-(2) By the show-cause notice of July 19, 1973, the attention of the petitioner was directed to 8 import licenses said to have been issued to the petitioner between November 1963 to December 1967 and the petitioner was required to sho...