Delhi Court February 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.
Smt. Ram Jawai, Widow of Shri Bal Kishan Dass 881-882, Nai Sarak, Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)0117B
T. P. S. Chawla, J. - These are ten petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of Union of India. In all of them the parties are the same. So also are the essential facts and the questions to which they give rise. The only different is that they pertain to different assessment years for purposes of income-tax. Respecting the question for determination that is of one significance, and, consequently, I proceed to dispose of all of them by this common judgment.2. Many years ago there was a Hindu Joint Family (the assessed) which carried on business in watches under the name and style of M/s. Bal Kishan Dass & Sons at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Ever since 1931-32 it was assessed to income tax and its assessment year was the same as the financial year. At the material time the Karta was Bal-Kishan Dass. For the seven assessment year extending between first April 1941 to 31st March 1949, assessment were first made under the Income-Tax Act 1922 in the ordinary way. Afterwards, taking advantag...
State Through the Entertainment Tax Inspector Vs. V.N. Sood and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi842
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This appeal, preferred against the acquittal of the respondents by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, New Delhi (Shri A. S. Dhugga), raises an interesting question of construction of the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Taxes Act, 1937 (hereinafter called the Act), extended to the Union Territory of Delhi vide Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. 20/2/50-Judl., dated 2nd April, 1950. The facts, namely undisputed as they transpire from the evidence of the prosecution itself, may be briefly noticed. (2) Shri Bodh Raj (P.W. 3), Entertainment Tax Inspector, Delhi visited, on 15-11-1968 at about 10 P.M., the Lido Restaurant run by the respondents, along with Shri M. M. Bajaj (P-W. 5); this was done as per the instructions of the Entertainment Tax Officer. They stayed in the restaurant till 11.15 P.M. There were two cabaret programmes by lady artistes and the band was played by four or five persons. The minimum charges for dinner and tea...
Aftab Ahmad and anr. Vs. NasiruddIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-13-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi121; 12(1976)DLT217; 1976RLR405
ORDER1. By an order dated 17th December, 1970, the Rent Controller struck out the defense of the respondents under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, but stated that this would not affect the rights of the respondents to lead evidence on the question of title and on the question whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal reversed the order and now the appellants have come in appeal under Section 39, of the Delhi Rent Control Act to seek restoration of the order passed by the Controller. The facts on record show that the appellants had applied for ejectment of the respondents some time in August, 1963, and for various reasons, the matter Is still pending before the Rent Controller On 10th June, 1964 an order was passed under Section 15(1) of the Act directing the respondents to deposit the arrears of rent and monthly rent as required by that Section. This order left open the question whether the relationship of landlord ...
Sushil Kumari Dang Vs. Prem Kumar Dang
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi321; 13(1977)DLT279b; 1976RLR487
1. This is a wife's appeal from the decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed by the Additional District Judge on January 30, 1974, against her.2. The appellant Sushil Kumar was married to the respondent Prem Kumar on February 25, 1970. The husband is 32 years of age. Nearly same is the age of the wife. Both of them are lower division clerks. They are getting about Rs - 400/- or Rs. 450/- per month as pay.3. The husband and wife lived together till July 15, 19,70. This is admitted on all hands. The case of the husband is that on July 16, 19,70, the wife left his house in the morning to join her duties at the office. She did not come back to his house in the evening. Thereafter she never came back to the matrimonial home.4. At the time the wife left the house on July 16, 1970, she was in the family way. In February 1971 when the husband and wife were living apart a daughter was born to the wife. That girl today is five years of age. She is living with her mother. 5. On July 13,197...
Delhi Finance Corporation Vs. Ram Pershad and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi479
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) Ram Pershad respondent (herein called 'the respondent') raised loans from the Delhi Finance Corporation (herein called 'the Corporation') on the basis of two mortgage deeds by mortgaging the imovable properties, plant and machinery belonging to him. He. however, failed to re-pay the loans in accordance with the terms of the mortgage deeds. The Corporation filed to suit against the respondent for the recovery of the said loans. (2) On the pleadings of the parties 11 issues were framed. Issues No. 1 to 10 were found by the learned District Judge in favor of the Corporation. In respect of issue No. 11 to the effect 'Whether the State Financial Corporation Act. 1951, is ultra virus of the Constitution of India as alleged by the respondent' the District Judge recorded the finding that the State Financial Corporation Act is ultra virus of the Constitution of India and in the result dismissed the suit. The Corporation challenged the aforesaid order in appeal in this Court ...
Pritam Lal Vs. Anand Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi256; 12(1976)DLT209; 1976RLR271
1. Pritam Lal, appellant, is a tenant of a house owned by the respondent landlady Shrimati Anand Kaur. The agreed rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per month. The tenant did not pay rent from June 1, 1973 to May 31, 1974.2. On 6-6-1974, the landlady brought an eviction case against the tenant. The sole ground on which the ejectment of the tenant was sought was non-payment of rent. In the ejectment petition it was said that the tenant had committed default once in the past and as a result of which an application for his eviction was filed and the Court made an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) directing him to deposit rent which he did. The default in the payment of rent from June 1973 to May 1974 was said to be a second default.3. Before the petition was filed by the landlady on December 14, 1973, she served a notice on the tenant. In the notice she wrote to the tenant as follows:-Registered A. D.From Shrimati Anand Kaur,E-130, Kalkaji Colony, New Delhi-19.Dated...
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1976
Reported in: 1976RLR367
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a question regarding the customs duty payable on a tractor loader. I will explain what a tractor loader is, a little later. The question has a number of facets, and arises in this way. (2) In or about 1960, the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited decided to set up a Rayon Tyre Cord Plant at Kota. For procuring the requisite machinery and its component parts the Mills entered into an agreement dated 25th July 1961 with Chemtex Inc., an American company. An import license dated 6th February 1962 was obtained for the 'plant and machinery and materials' to be imported. A complete list of the goods allowed to be imported was annexed to the license. Towards the end of 1963, the license was registered with the Customs Authorities at Bombay. Since it was impossible to transpo all the machinery together, it was sent in a number of consignments. In respect of each consignment, as and when it arrived, the Cu...
Jiwat Bai and Sons Vs. G.C. Batra Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi310; 1976RLR374
H.L. Anand, J. (1) Jiwat Bai's husband's father had a vending contract with Railway from 1920 to until his death in 1932 in Pakistan. Contract was then transferred to her husband which continued with him even after migration to India and till he died in 1961. After that it was transferred in the name of petitioner and was renewed from time to time. Last agreement was of 16.11.72 and it was signed by her son Hiralal. It was to expire on 31.7.74. By policy letter of 24.7.74, it was decided to renew licenses of individual, as distinct from contractors, without calling applications. On 26.7.74, petitioner was told that it was decided not to renew her license. After a temporary period, petitioners contract was terminated by letter dt. 22.11.76. Writ petition was filed on 28.11.74. During its pendency, there was a policy change per letter dt. 24.2.75 by which refugees were exempted from operation of current policy. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition is by M/s Ji...
Madan Gopal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1302; 12(1976)DLT88; 1976RLR475
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This revision is directed against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteratio (2) The petitioner runs a shop at 1/1856 Jot Dharamsala, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi. On July 26, 1973 at 6.30 a.m. Food Inspector Kanwal Krishan found him selling milk without license. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of cow's milk for analysis. The Public Analyst found the milk adulterated 'due to the presence of foreign matter of cane sugar to the extent of 1.71 per cent' (Exhibit P.E.). (3) The defense of the petitioner was that the sample had been taken out of milk which he had kept for domestic consumption and to which cane sugar had been added as a preservative. He denied receiving any price. He also denied that the milk was taken from a bucket on which there was an indication that it contained cow's milk. (4) Both the courts below found that the petitioner had kept the milk for ...
Gajna Devi Vs. Purshotam Girl
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi178; 13(1977)DLT77; 1976RLR480
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This first appeal from order has been filed by the wife against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 15th March, 1975. by which he has granted a decree for divorce by dissolving the marriage under section 13(1A)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955). hereinafter referred to as the Act. (2) The material facts of the case are that the appellant wife and the respondent husband, who were Hindus, were married on 16th April, 1963 according to Hindu rites. It is alleged that after a lew months the husband turned out the wife after treating her cruelly. Consequently, the wife filed a petition on 5th November. 1965 under section 10 of the Act for judicial separation. This was decreed ex party by Mr. Mahesh Chandra, Sub-Judge. I Class, by order dated 30th March, 1966 (copy Ex. P1). After sometime, the husband instituted a petition against the wife for dissolution of marriage on the 727 allegation of adultery with one Nanak Chand. This was disbelieved and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›