Delhi Court May 1977 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.
B.K. Khanna Vs. K.N. Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi48
ORDER1. B. K. Khanna & Co. (P.) Ltd., (for short, the company) was incorporated on December 3, 1949 with a nominal capital of Rs. 10 lakhs divided into 10,000 equity shares of the value of Rs. 100 each. The subscribed and paid up capital at all material times has been Rs. 4,99,800. The company was incorporated, inter alia, with the object to acquire -and take over as a going concern the business of importers, exporters, agents, distributors, dealers in machinery, contractors, engineers etc. which was then being carried on under the name and style of B. K. Khanna & Co. The company is a family concern. 44% of the issued capital is held by each of the two brothers B. K. Khanna and K. N. Khanna, petitioner and the first respondent respectively, while the remaining 12% is held by their mother, Smt. Shama Khanna, the third respondent. The Board consists, besides the three shareholders, of Smt. Kamla Rathour, 2nd respondent the sister of the two brothers who has, however, no shareholding.2. O...
Rail Chand Vs. Alal Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT153
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) The present Revision has been filed tochallenge the validity of the order passed by the Commercial Sub Judgewhereby he decided Issue No. 5 in the suit : the said issue was regardingthe value for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction. It was held that thepecuniary jurisdiction was Rs. 48,200.00 and not Rs. 24,000.00 as fixedby the plaintiff. However, the Court did not return the plaint, butordered the file to be sent to the Court District Judge for transfer to acompetent Court.(2) The history of the case is some justification for the order actually passed by the Commercial Sub Judge. The suit was instituted forrendition of accounts and partition of Joint Hindu Family property.As the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction was less than Rs. 25,000.00the suit was properly instituted before a Subordinate Judge. At thattime, the Delhi High Court Act provided that suits above Rs. 25,000.00had to be instituted in the High Court. Later, the valuation was raisedto Rs. 50,000...
Canteen Employees of the Central Ordnance Depot Vs. Central Govt. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ296Del
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been moved by the canteen employees of the Central Ordnance Depot in Delhi Cantonment, which is a branch of the defense Installations Employees Association, through its general secretary. It is said that the defense Installations Canteen Employees Association is registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act According to the petition, there is a Central Ordnance Depot in Delhi Cantonment which is managed by the Ministry of defense at which 250 persons are employed. Under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, every factory has to maintain a canteen. The petitioner appears to be an association of all the employees in this canteen.2. It is claimed in the petition that the petitioners had moved Writ Petition No. 1224 of 1970, praying for a writ of mandamus against the Central Government for the purpose of obtaining a reference of an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industri...
Raza Sugar Co. Ltd. and Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1977
Reported in: [1981]130ITR421(Delhi)
Tatachari, C.J. 1. These two references under Section 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have been heard together and can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts which have given rise to these references are the following : In I.T.R. No. 9 of 1969, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', has referred four questions stated to arise out of an order of the Tribunal, dated 6th August, 1965, in Income-tax Appeal No. 10235 of 1963-64, relating to the assessment year 1952-53, the assessed being the Raza Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur. In I.T.R. No. 31 of 1969, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', has referred five questions stated to arise out of an order of the Tribunal, dated 17th August, 1966, relating to the same assessment year 1952-53, in Income-tax Appeal No. 10236 of 1963-64, the assessed being the Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur.3. Each of the assesseds carried on the business of manufacture of sugar and sale thereof. ...
Wazir Chand Vs. NaraIn Devi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR88
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is an appeal instituted by the landlord U/S 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against an order whereby his petition for eviction U/S 14(1)(e) has been dismissed solely on the ground that the petition cannot be instituted because Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 states that no suit for eviction can be filed without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority if the premises are situated in a slum area. The landlord did not dispute the fact that the premises are situated in the slum area and are covered by the Act, but the contention was that on account of the amendment made by the Amendment Act of 1976, it was no longer necessary to get permission from the Competent Authority as the new Chapter Iiia had introduced a new procedure for the trial of applications U/S 14(1)(e) and the newly introduced Section 14A. The Rent Controller found that as far as Section 14A was concerned, it had an over-riding effect over all...
Bharat Singh Vs. Sheo Parshad Giani Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi122; ILR1977Delhi695
ORDER21, R. 58 of the Code provides a summary remedy to third parties, i.e., persons other than judgment-debtors or their legal representatives for raising objections to the attachment of the property. Where a third party has a claim or an objection to the attachment of property attached in execution of a decree, there are two courses open to him. He may straightway file a suit claiming the appropriate relief, or he may file an objection-petition under '0. 21, R. 58 of the Code of Civl Procedure to the Court executing the decree. The remedy provided thus is not only summary but is also concurtent and results only in a summary investigation and not a full trial of the issues between the parties. The party aggrieved by an order passed after such investigation has to file a suit under R.63 within one year to establish the rights which he claims to the property in dispute. If the suit is instituted by the decree-holder, against whom an order has been passed on objections filed under 0. 2.1...
Sunder Lal Vs. Jeet Singh Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR407
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is an appeal u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal refusing stay of further proceedings during the pendency of an appeal against an order passed U/S 15(1). At first sight, this order seems to be entirely discretionary and also appears to involve no substantial question of law. In addition to the circumstances in which the stay order had been refused, it may also be mentioned that earlier the appellant had applied for stay of the order under appeal but stay was refused. The question for consideration is whether the Rent Control Tribunal was right in refusing the stay of further proceedings before the Controller, and whether this appeal is maintainable. (2) In order to appreciate the points of law involved in this appeal it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Rent Control Act in respect of eviction petitions U/S 14(1)(a) of the Act. In such a case, the landlord alleges that the tenant has not paid or ...
K.R. Tahiliani Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi107; 1978LabIC463
H.L. Anand, J. (1) The only question that must be considered in this petition of a former civil servant is as to whether he could be legitimately retired compulsorily under Rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules (for short, the rule), on attaming the age of 50 years. The other questions raised by the petitioner do not survive at present in view of the claim of privilege set up on behalf of the Union. (2) On March 5, 1949 the petitioner joined government service. On December 11, 1974 he attained the age of fifty years. On July 17, 1975 the Engineer-in-Chief made an order (Annexure 1) to the effect that the petitioner, having attained the age of fifty years, shall retire from service. The impugned order was made in purported exercise of the powers conferred by the Rule on the ground that it was in public interest to retire the petitioner. On the date of the order the petitioner held in a substantive capacity the post of Section Officer (Civil), formerly known as Junior Engineer, a class ...
The Refugees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Harbans Singh BhasI ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT237
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) (ORAL)-THE petitioner in the present and the two connected writ petitions, namely, C.W. 484/1970 and C.W. 485/1970, is a house building co-operative society while the respondents therein are members of the said society. The society avers that in 1957 it called upon the respondents to make payments towards the cost of the plots of lands to be allotted to them by the society informing them that if the payments were not made within the prescribed time their names will be liable to be removed from the list of the members. As the respondents failed to pay the money within time, reminders were issued but to no effect. The respondents' names were accordingly removed from the list of membership. The respondents raised disputes under section 54 of the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, as extended to Delhi. The disputes were referred by the Registrar for adjudication to his nominee Shri Ram Gopal. After a lapse of over a year the Registrar withdrew the arbitration pro...
Siri Krishan Bhardwaj Vs. Manohar Lal Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi226; 1977RLR378
Prakash Narain, J.1. This matter comes before us on a reference made by me to a larger bench on account of a conflict of opinion between B. C. Misra, J. and D. K. Kapur, J. in their respective judgment deciding Civil Revn. No. 20 of 1973 Lachhman Singh etc. v. C. D. Taneia etc. and Civil Revn. No. 355 of 1973 (Delhi) Ramesh Chander Jain v. Sarvdeshik Arya Pratinidhi SabhaIn point of time the decision of Kapur, J. was earlier than the decision of B. C. Misra, J. but it seems that the decision of Kapur, J. was not brought to the notice of Misra, J.2. The two learned Judges have differed on the question of the maintainability of a revision petition against an order of a trial Court declining leave to the defendant to appear and defend a suit under 0. 37 of the Civil P. C. if a decree has also been passed against the said defendant. B. C. Misra, J. is of the opinion that the mere fact that the court below at the time of or after refusing to grant leave to the defendant to appear and defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »