Delhi Court July 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.
Angoori Devi Vs. Chameli Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi577
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The question whether this Court can interfere with the decision of the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Delhi depends on the true construction of the ambit of section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 under which this revision has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Section 25 is as follows :- 'REVISIONof decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes.- The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case 'decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit.' (2) The suit of the plaintiff petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 28.00 from 8-3-1969 to 7-1-1970 amounting to Rs. 280.00 from the defendant respondent her tenant, was only partly decreed by the learned Small Cause Judge because he held that' the rent agreed to be payable by the defendant respondent to the plaintiff petitioner for a room measuri...
Oriental Trading Corporation Vs. Punjab SkIn Trading Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1976
Reported in: 1976RLR650
B.C. Misra, J. (1) Petitioner, a tenant of certain premises, granted license to respondent on commission basis. Later on, he revoked it. When respondent failed to give possession, he sued him for mandatory injunction paying Court fees of Rs. 3. Respondent objected that suit is really for possession and petitioner should pay Court fees on market value. Petitioner filed revision. Paras 3 to 5 of judgment are : (2) The law on the subject is well settled. Under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act in a suit to obtain injunction, discretion is given to the plaintiff to value the relief and pay the court fees accordingly and a local amendment made in the law has provided that the court fees paid in such a suit shall be not less than Rs. 13. On the other hand, in suits for possession of land and houses, the court fee is to be paid on the market value as provided in sub-clause (c) of clause (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. In Sathapana Chettiar v. Ramanathan, : [1958]1SCR1021 , the Su...
Newfields Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi49
H.L. Anand, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner, M/s. Newfields Advertising Private Ltd., carrying on the business of advertising consultants, claims adeclaration that it is not a 'dealer' within the meaning of The BengalFinance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territoryof Delhi, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Local Act' or the CentralSales-tax Act, 1956, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Central Act',and seeks to quash the assessment order in respect of the year 1969-70,to restrain the respondents, the sales-tax authorities, from making anyassessment under the Local Act in respect of the assessment years1962-63 to 1968-69 or 'under the Central Act in respect of the assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69, to quash the notices issued in respectof the assessment years 1962-63 to 1968-69 under the Local Act aswell as in respect of assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69 under theCentral Act, to quash notices in respect of asse...
M/S. Newfields Advertising (P) Ltd., 3/4-a, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-1 ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)0264C
H. L. Anand, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s. Newfield Advertising Private Ltd., carrying on the business of advertising consultants, claims a declaration that it is not a 'dealer' within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales-Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Local Act' or to the Central Sales-Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Central Act', and seeks to quash the assessment order in respect of the year 1969-70, to restrain the respondents, the sales-tax authorities, from making any assessment under the Local Act in respect of the assessment years 1962-63 to 1968-69 or under the Central Act in respect of the assessment years 1963-64 to 1368-69, to quash the notices issued in respect of the assessment years 1962-63 to 1968-69 under the Local Act as well as in respect of assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69 under the Central Act, to quash notices in res...
Toshniwal Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi548
H.L. Anand, J. (1) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employer, challenges an order of the Addl. Labour Court, Delhi, holding in a proceeding on a reference under Sections 10(l)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, repelling the contention of the petitioner to the contrary, that respondent No. 3, the validity of the termination of whose services by the petitioner, formed subject-matter of the reference, was a 'workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act.(2) D. P. Maheshwari, respondent No. 3, was appointed by the petitioner, a Joint Stock Company carrying on business in Delhi and other places, as an Accounts Officer in August, 1964, vide Annexure P-4, at a salary of Rs. 600.00 in the grade of Rs. 600-50-800 pursuant to his application of March 26, 1964, Annexure P-3, in which the respondent described himself as an M. Com., LLB., with special proficiency in Company Accounts & Audit, Income-Tax Law, Statistics, Organisation...
ShariffuddIn Haji Noor Baksh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1054
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. This petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure is directed against the order made by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, on 25th of November, 1975, by which he disposed of Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1975. The disposal by the Additional Sessions Judge was of a Criminal Revision petition within the purview of Section 397 of the aforesaid code. Sub-section (3) in that provision is:(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the ether of them.There is a statutory bar in Sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against any revision petition being preferred by the same person, where a revision petition preferred by him has been disposed of either by the High, Court or the Sessions Judge. The disposal of the revision petition by either of the said courts becomes final in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›