Delhi Court December 1976 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.
C.P. Singh and Co. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi633
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) These are 29 writ petitions. They raise a common question of law. They were heard together. This judgment will govern them all. (2) M/S. C. P. Singh and Co., petitioner in this case, are the owners of a building known as Thapar House bearing No. 124 in Janpath Lane, New Delhi. This building has been sub-divided by the respondent New Delhi Municipal Committee into different tenements for purposes of assessment of house-tax as a matter of convenience. (3) The various tenements have been let to different tenants. The owners are Realizing from the tenants, apart from rent, charges for air-conditioning and geysers. (4) By a resolution dated 16th December, 1960 the committee had decided that for purposes of determining the annual value of a building under section 3 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (the Act) the committee will exclude from consideration the charges for airconditioning and geysers. (5) In 1964 the committee changed its mind. They decided to withdr...
Tirlok Chand Vs. the Estate Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi511; 1977RLR120
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a question whether an owner of a property, which has been acquired, could be treated as an unauthorised occupant for the purpose of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, the Public Premises Act) even though only a symbolic possession was taken in the course of acquisition proceedings and he continued to be in actual physical possession of the property.(2) This is how the question arose. Land in dispute, including the structure that apparently stands on a part of it, admittedly owned by the petitioner and another, was acquired by a notification of January 31, 1957 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Acquisition Act). An award was made on February 23, 1961 by the Land Acquisition Collector under section Ii of the Acquisition Act. Thereafter on March 12, 1964 symbolic possession of the property was taken and delivered to the Municipa...
Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas184(Delhi); ILR1977Delhi444; 1977RLR179
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) There are two Company Petitions before the Court for considering a scheme(2) Notices of this petition were published in newspapers under the directions of this Court, and also, issued to the Central Government and the Registrar of Companies. The Official Liquidator was also directed to scrutinise the books of Ansal Steels Private Limited for the purpose of making a report under the second proviso to Section 394(1) of the Act and he has made a report. A representation, or reply has been filed by the Central Government, Mr. H. S. Bhatia, Assistant Registrar of Companies has submitted that the Court may consider whether the scheme sufficiently safeguards the creditors of the two companies and, whether it is fair on the share-holders. I have examined the scheme from the point of view of the share-holders. As they have approved the scheme unanimously, I do not think that it is necessary to comment on the reasonableness of the allotment of the shares proposed. I had also co...
Prem Raj Madan Lal Aboti and anr. Vs. the Collector of Central Excise ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi779
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Oral on March 27, 1964,the two petitioners, father and son, when they were alighting from a train at J(2) On October 12, 1964, the Collector of Central Excise issued a notice to the petitioners saying that since they had acquired and possessed the aforementioned non-ornamental gold in contravention of Ru.le 126H(2)(d), and/or 1261(3) of the defense of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963 at Bombay on 27th March, 1964 they should show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 126L(16) of the said Rules. THEdefense of India Rules 1962 were framed under the defense of India Act 1962. The said Rules were amended in 1963. Part Xii A dealing with the Gold Control Rules 1963 was inserted.(3) By an order dated 6th January, 1965 the Collector of Central Excise Poona passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 4000.00 on the father, petitioner No. 1, and Rs. 1000.00 on the son, petitioner No- 2. As regards the seizure of gold he said that no order of c...
Nvishwaath Khanna Vs. Collector of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi569; 1977RLR141
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ quashing the order of extension of period for issuing show cause notice issued on 12th September, 1974 by Mr. M. S. Mehta, Collector of Customs & Central Excise.(2) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a citizen of India and resident of New Delhi. He obtained a passport issued at Kuwait on 26th August, 1971 and travelled from Delhi to Bangkok on 21st December, 1973 and returned to India and landed at Palam Airport on 3rd January, 1974 by Lufthansa flight. On arrival at Airport he presented himself for Customs clearance. His accompanied baggages consisted of four packages including a hand-bag. He also declared that he was expecting some other unaccompanied baggage and on his declaration landing certificate was granted to him. On the same date two unaccompanied packages arrived at the Palam Airport from Hongkong booked on 2nd January,...
Prem Lal Vs. Estate Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT95; 1977RLR146
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This writ petition came up for hearing before a single Judge, who has by order dated 16th April, 1964 referred it to a larger Bench for decision. (2) The writ is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated 3rd February, 1966, by which he has on appeal set aside the order of the Estate Officer, dated 6th April, 1965 passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act for eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute, and remanded the case to the Estate Officer. (3) The land in dispute is a small strip of land situated outside the Shiv Temple in Nizamuddin. The land was claimed by the Land & Development Officer as belonging to the Government and the possession of the petitioner was alleged to be unauthorised. Proceedings for his eviction were initiated by the Estate Officer. On behalf of the Government reliance was placed on a lease deed granted by the Government to Sanatan Dharam Sabha. There was some dispute about the...
Paramjit Singh Vs. Parkash Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT73; 1977RLR236
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition has been filedunder the proviso to sub-section (8) of section 25B of the DelhiRent Control Act. 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').as amended by Act No. 18 of 1976 with effect from 1/12/1975.(2) The material facts of the case are that the respondent landlady is the owner and landlord in respect of the premises in dispute,which consists of the first floor of the house No. B-3/4, RameshNagar, New Delhi. It was let out to the petitioner at the rate ofRs. 75.00 per month. The respondent had instituted a petition on 27/01/1976 for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds ofbona fide personal necessity, the tenant not living in the premises formore than one year, and unlawful subletting being the groundsmentioned in clauses (e), (d) and (b) of the provisos to sub-section(1) of section 14 and 14A(1) of the Act. Notice of this petition wasissued and served on the petitioner, who filed a written statementto the same. While this petition ...
Adhikarla Ananda Rao Vs. S. Gurmel Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT48; 1977RLR97
H.L. Anand, J. (1) By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, made on December 2, 1975 in proceedings for eviction of the petitioner by which the Additional Rent Controller refused to grant leave to the petitioner to amend his reply to the said application so as to incorporate a plea for fixation of standard rent of the premises in dispute, should the Additional Rent Controller come to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in respect of the said premises.(2) The facts and circumstances leading to the petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner was admittedly in occupation of the ground floor of the property in dispute as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 250. Since February, 1972 the petitioner has, however, been in occupation of the first floor of the premises in dispute having delivered the vacant possession of the ground floor to th...
The Management of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. the Administrator of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi370; 1977LabIC681
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Hindustan Lever Limited is an Indian based company. They are a large manufacturing concern. Their Delhi office is concerned only with sales and marketing. There was a labour dispute in Delhi office. (2) On September 29, 1966, in exercise of the powers conferred by s. IO(D(d) and 12(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act) the Administrator of Delhi referred the following disputes between the management and the workmen to the Additional Industrial Tribunal: 1. Whether the Management should fill in all the 10 vacancies which have arisen in the clerical staff of the Delhi office from the year 1962 onwards and what directions are necessary in this respect 2. Whether the practice of employing labour on contract/ casual and temporary basis should be stopped and what directions are necessary in this respect (3) The Tribunal entered upon the reference. At the very outset the Management raised a preliminary objection. They said that inasmuch as the above mentione...
Sarabjit Singh Vs. Mohan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1976
Reported in: 1977RLR79
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to was the Act), by the tenant against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 7th October, 1976, by which he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Additional Controller dated 12th May, 1975, dismissing the objections of the appellant against the execution of the order for eviction. (2) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent is the landlord and owner of the property No. C-382, defense Colony, New Delhi, which had been let out to the appellent on a rent of Rs. 650.00 per month. On 3rd January, 1968 the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The petition was allowed and the order for eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute was passed. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »