Delhi Court January 1978 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.
Ranbir Chandra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi241; 1978LabIC1027; 1978RLR328
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This Letters patent Appeal is directed against the order, dated 15th November, 1977, of the learned single Judge, by which the operation of the order of respondent No. 1, passed on 22-7-77 refixing the seniority of the appllant was stayed.(2) The appellant qualified for appointment as a Class I Officer, as a result of the combined competitive examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1945 for Central Civil Services, including the Military Accounts Department and the Income-tax Officers Class I Grade II. He was allocated to the Military Accounts Department, which stood at par with Income-tax Officers, Class I Grade Ii Service. In that department at that time the recruitment on the results of the said examination was being made only to the Emergency Cadre to which the appellant was appointed. Even the appointments to Income-tax Officers, Class I Service were also made on temporary basis.(3) In June, 1950, the Special Recruitment Board interviewed...
Lal Chand Vs. Gopi Kishan and Seven ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT89
T.V.R. Tatachari (1) This Second Appeal against Order has come up before us on a reference by B. C. Misra J. The said second appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act No. 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act) by Lal Chand (landlord) against the appellate order of Mr. M. L. Jain, Rent Control Tribunal, dated 15th May, 1969, in Rent Control Appeal No. 237 of 1967, whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of Mr. P. K. Bahri, 1st Additional Controller, dated 10th January, 1967, in Suit No. 950 of 1962, dismissing a petition for eviction filed by Lal Chand against the respondents herein on the ground of unlawful subletting.(2) The premises in question bears No. 73, Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and belongs to Lal Chand. It was let out by Lal Chand to Gopi Krishan Nath Mal, respondent 1 herein, sometime in 1934. According to the concurrent findings of the first Additional Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, sometime be...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Pershad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi16; [1978]113ITR462(Delhi)
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) The assessed, Shri Ram Pershad, was allotted 30 preference shares of the value of Rs. 30,000 for promoting company, United Hotels, New Delhi, (herein called 'the company'). The Income-tax Officer sought to include the value of the said shares as income of the assessed during the course of assessment for the year 1952-53, accounting year ending on 31st March, 1952. The view taken by the Income-tax Officer for including the amount of Rs. 30,000 being the value of 30 shares was that the value of the shares was assessed's remuneration for services rendered and as such was taxable. The assessed's stand was that the value of the shores was a benefit of casual and non-recurring nature, exempt from income-tax under section 4(3)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (herein called 'the Act'). The Income-tax Officer by his order dated 13th May, 1956, rejected the contention of the assessed and included the amount of the shares as income of the assessed and assessed the value...
Vishnu Dutt Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT197
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This revision petition was admitted only on the question of sentence. (2) The accused has a shop at No. 15,Swatantra Bharat Mills, Najafgarh Road, Delhi and sells sweet-meat and tea. On 28th November, 1975 a sample of milk was purchased from the servant of the accused out of the milk contained in a patila. The milk was found to be adulterated. The extent of adulteration was that the milk fat contained was 2.8. percent instead of 3.5. percent and nonfatty solids were 8.04 percent instead of 8.30 percent. (3) It is clear from the statement of the co-accused as well as of the petitioner that they do not deal with sale of the milk as such but the question arises : should they be given the benefit of proviso contained in section 16(1) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act The proviso inter alia-contemplates that where there is an adulteration of standards then the court may for any adequate or special reasons impose sentence less than the minimum prescribed. The ...
Indian Bank Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1023; 15(1979)DLT209
(1) This criminal revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioners for offences under S. 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Act. The petitioners are the Indian Bank South Extension, Part Ii, New Delhi and its Manager. The case of the prosecution was that a branch of the Indian Bank was functioning at D-4, Ring Road, N.D.S.E. Part Ii, New Delhi which led to the allegation that the bank was functioning contrary to Sec. 14 of the Delhi Development Act. A complaint was accordingly filed under Section 29 (2) of the Act. The sanction for the prosecution was given by the Secretary, of the Delhi Development Authority. The Magistrate convicted the conviction was maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, who however reduced the sentence on the managar to Rs. 500.00 fine and on the Bank to Rs. 1000.00 fine. The fines have been paid but the petitioners have moved this Court.(2) In support of the contention that the conviction is unfounded the learned counsel for the petitioners has u...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Rallijes India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi40; 14(1978)DLT95; 1978RLR552
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court passed on the Original Side dismissing an application moved by the appellant under Order Xxi rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting to attachment of land belonging to the judgment debtors, Messrs. Arden Farms and Shri P. K. Padmanabhan.(2) MESSRS. Rallies India Ltd., respondent No. 1, obtained a decree for Rs. 1,46,038 with interest rendente lite, future interest and costs in suit No. 351 of 1969 brought by the said company against M/s. Arden Farms and its proprietor Shri P. K. Padmanabhan. In execution of the said decree in Execution case No. 92 of 1973 M/s. Rallies India Limited obtained orders for attachment of agricultural land belonging to the judgment debtors known as M/s. Arden Farms in Mehrauli. These attachment orders were passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the Original Side on February 21, 1974. The attachment was duly effected...
Murari Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT255
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a petition for revision by Sarvshri Murari Lal. Beg Raj, Mukat Behari. Brij Lal, Rajinder Kumar s/o Brij Lali Om Prakashi Rajinder Kumar and Vijay Kumar, alleged partners of M/s Delhi Gram Flour Mills & Co., for calling for the records of the complaint filed by Union of India through Shri U. S. Sharma, Food Inspector of the Office of the Director General, Health Services, against Durga Prasad, Manager of the aforesaid firm and its ten partners and for setting aside the order dated 21.11.1977 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and also for quashing the proceedings pending before Shri J. M. Malik, Metropolitan Magistrate in relation to that complaint. (2) The facts relating to the petition are that one M.K. Bhan, Food Inspector, visited the premises of the Delhi Gram Flour Mills & Co. on 31.3.1973 and lifted sample of 'basin' from Durga Prasad who was the Manager at the Mill of the firm. After performing the usual formalities of getting the sampl...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Popul Dass and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT208
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is an application for condensation of delay in filing Crl. R. No 285/77 in this court against the order dated 1 1/12/1975 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The revision is really for enhancement of sentence for an alleged offence for having sold adulterated Dhania. The learned trial court has awarded the sentence of one year with a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default imprisonment for six months. The trial Court had also convicted the respondent for selling Dhania without license and for which he was separately sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal maintained the conviction on the ground of adulteration but reduced the sentence to fine ofRs. 1000.00 and imprisonment till rising of the court. The conviction regarding selling Dhania without license was however, set aside and the accused was acquitted on that charge. The limitation period for filing the revision petition is statutorily fixed at 90 days a...
Sushil Prasad Vs. the Official Liquidator of Vinod Motors (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1978
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas462(Delhi); 15(1979)DLT250
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is an appeal under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against the decision recorded by the Official Liquidator que the appellant's claim as a creditor of M/s. Vinod Motors (Private) Ltd. The Official Liquidator per decision dated 9th September, 1976, has held that he admits Rs. 1,48,045.56 as due, but does not admit the fact that it is a secured claim. In fact, the official Liquidator has used other language in the order, but this is the sum and substance and effect of the order. The present appeal is not concerned with the quantum of the claim, but with the nature of the claim. In other words, the appellant wants to be treated as a secured creditor having a preferential right over other creditors. The appellant relies on an agreement dated 19th December, 1967, entered into with the company which is reproduced in the grounds of appeal. It is also stated that this agreement created a mortgage/charge which was registered under section 132 of the Compani...
Kehar Singh Vs. Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi236; 14(1978)DLT1a; 1978RLR120
H.L. Anand, J.1. This judgment would dispose of S. A. O. No. 280 and S. A.O. 354 of 1972, both of which assail a common order of the Rent Control Tribunal setting aside the order of eviction made by the Controller and remanding the case back to the Controller for decision in accordance with law. The only question posed for decision is as to whether an order made by the Controller under S. 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short, the Act), gets total immunity from legal challenge in case no appeal against it is filed.2. This is how the question has arisen. In the course of proceedings for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non' payment of rent in. spite of service of notice of demand, the Controller made an order under S. 15(1) of the Act in spite of a plea of the tenant denying the validity of the notice and disputing the quantum of liability. The tenant admittedly made default in compliance of the order in that the deposit was made after the expiry of the period within...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »