Delhi Court April 1978 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.
R. Ramanujam Vs. Ajit Singh Thukral and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi286; ILR1978Delhi368; 1978RLR378
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This is a tenant's Second Appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, by which the Rent Control Tribunal reversed the order of the Controller, dismissing the landlord's application- for the eviction of the tenant, on the ground that on account of the admitted user of a residential premises by the tenant for running a boarding and lodging house in the demised premise's, the tenant was liable to be evicted by virtue of clause (k) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for short, the Act, and remanded the case to the Controller for consideration under sub-section (II) of section 14 of the Act. The Second Appeal was filed in the following circumstances :- (2) The premises in dispute, which are admittedly of a residential nature, and built on leasehold land, were let out to the tenant by the predecessor-in-title of the present landlords, the respondents in this appeal There was some controversy at an earlier stage o...
Kanta Devi and ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi318
ORDER1. Surinder Kumar brought a suit for permanent injunction for restraining Kanta Devi and Bhoop Kaur, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'landladies'), from dispossessing him from shop No. 3103-04, Bahadurgarh Road, Delhi. He claimed to be a tenant of the shop. He averred that the landladies in conspiracy with M/s. Dwarka Dass Somat Prashad (defendant No. 3) filed a petition for the plaintiff's eviction on the ground that defendant No. 3 was the tenant who had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the shop to the plaintiff without the consent in writing of the landladies. This petition was filed under cls. (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Controller allowed this petition holding that the plaintiff was not a tenant of the landladies and ordered his eviction. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged this order before the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court. 2. The defendants resist...
M.C. Arora and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ358; 14(1978)DLT17B
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) On January 23, 1973, at 9.45 p;m. a food inspector visited the premises of Alka Hotel and Restaurant in Connaught Circus. New Delhi. He purchased toned milk and curd prepared from toned milk from M.C.Arora, manager of the restaurant. Each sample was divided into three pans as required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (the Act), One sample of each of the two articles was sent to the public analyst. The analyst reported that both the samples were adulterated. (2) The Union of India launched the prosecution against three accused persons (1) M. C. Arora, manager of the restaurant; (2) Alka Hotel and Restaurant, a partnership firm and (3) S. P. Agarwal, the managing partner of the firm Alka Hotel and Restaurant who, it was stated, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. The complaint was filed under sections 7, 16 and 17 of the Act.(3) When the evidence was being recorded by the trying magistrate the accused M. C. Arora mad...
Noormohd Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi442
T. P. S. Chawla, J. (1) This is an application for bail which has been referred by a single Judge for decision by a larger bench. The reason is that there is a conflict of Judicial opinion as to the meaning and effect of proviso (a) to section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and the matter is one of considerable importance. Briefly, the relevant facts are as follows.(2) The petitioner was arrested by the police on 17th April 1977 as it was suspected that he had taken part in committing a murder. Despite the lapse of 60 days, during which the petitioner remained in custody, the investigation was not complete. Consequently, the report envisaged by section 173 of the Code was not sent to the Magistrate by the police within that time. On 17th June, the sixty-first days, the petitioner applied to the Additional Session Judge for bail. This application was rejected on the very next day, 18th June. The reason given by the Additional Sessions Judge was that he had been informed ...
Kartar Chand Etc. Vs. Jowala Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi49; 14(1978)DLT17; 1978RLR434
V.S. Deshpande, J.(2) The respondent died on the 24th August, 1977. -The appellant says he was ignorant of the respondent's death. Consequently, the appeal abated as appellant did not make application within 90 days to join the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The ignorance of the appellant of the death of the respondent continued thereafter and no application was made by him for setting aside the abatement of the appeal within the prescribed period of 60 days. On the 24th February, 1978 the appellant made two applications, CMs 183 and 184 of 1978 ; the first for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record and second for setting aside the abatement of the appeal on the ground that the appellant was ignorant of the death of the deceased respondent and this constituted sufficient cause for the delay in making these applications. (2) The relevant provision to be construed in considering these applications is Order Xxii rule 4 (5), as amended in...
K.C. Dass and Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ362; 14(1978)DLT16B
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These are three petition for habeas corpus. The point raised in all of them is the same. It is a point of principle. It relates to set off of the period of detention undergone by the accused under s. 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. (2) The three accused in the three writ petitions were convicted of crimes in more cases than one. They were awarded separate sentences at different times. Each of the accused was arrested in one case to begin with and thereafter he was also placed under arrest at different times in other cases. This means that formally he was put under arrest in other cases, though he was already in detention. (3) Take a simple illustration. An accused is arrested in one case on 1-1-1977. He is arrested in another case on 1-1-1978, while the trial of the first case is proceeding. In the first case he is convicted and sentenced on 31-1-1978 to two years imprisonment. Under s. 428 the accused will be entitled to set off his period of dete...
Chander Dev Chad Vs. Rani Bala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi22; ILR1978Delhi331
A.B. Rohatgi, J. (1) These are three appeals under the Hindu Marriage Act. F.A.O. 20 of 1973 is wife's appeal against the decree of divorce passed in favor of the husband. F.A.O. 13 of 1978 is the husband's appeal against the decree refusing him restitution of conjugal rights. F.A.O. 14 of 1978 is again a husband's appeal against an order denying him custody of children. (2) The question before us is whether these appeals are barred by time. The Registry has raised an objection that they are out of time. (3) In all three cases the appeallants applied for certified copy of the judgment, decree or order passed by the trial court as was the case. After they had obtained these they filed appeals. If the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the decree or order is excluded. the appeals were filed within 30 days and are well within time; but if in law it could not be excluded, the appeals would certainly be out of time. The respondents contend before us that the appellants are not entitle...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT16; [1978]115ITR659(Delhi)
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J. (1) These six references can be disposed of by a common judgment. They relate to the respective assessment years as stated below :- I.T. R. No. 197 of 1974 1956-57 I.T. R. No. 172 of 1974 1957-58 I.T. R. No. 104 of 1973 1958-59 I.T. R. No. 105 of 1973 1959-60 I.T. R. No. 106 of 1973 1960-61 I.T. R. No. 107 of 1973 1961-62 (2) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has referred to this Court the following question which is common to all the six assessment years :- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case the expenditure incurred by the assessed in organising Football and Hockey Tournaments was an allowable deduction under Section 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' (3) The assessed Company, M/s. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi, owns a number of mills referred to as Delhi Cloth Mills Group (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.C.M. Group'). The company conducts annually All India hockey and football tournaments for whic...
Union Bank of India and anr. Vs. Jagan Natb Radhey Shyam and Co. and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi36
ORDER1. This is an application under Sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condensation of delay in supplying the deficiency in court-fees.2. This application for condensation of delay arose in the following circumstances.The judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court on 17th August, 1977. The appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on 20th August, 1977 and the same was ready for delivery on 23rd September, 1977.The common case of the parties is that after taking into account the time spent in obtaining certified copies of the judgment and the decree of the trial court, the appeal could be filed up-till 19th December, 1977.The appeal was filed on 19th December 1977 on a court-fee of Rs.5/- only. The court-fee payable was Rs.2783-20.The appeal was scrutinised by the Registry and, apart from other defects, it was noticed that the appeal was insufficiently stamped and it was also noticed in objection No.6 'receipt of Rs.100/- as advance cha...
Mahabir Singh Vs. Jai Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-1978
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas558(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. This is an application under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, for rectification of the register of members of M/s. Federal Motors (P.) Ltd. The petitioner claims that he is the shareholder of 70 shares of the company and his name has been wrongly removed. The company in question appears to be a family company which was promoted by the late Shri Bharat Singh, step-brother of the petitioner. The said Bharat Singh and the petitioner were also members of a joint family known as Rai Saheb Shyam Singh (this is the name of the father of the petitioner and Shri Bharat Singh). It is stated that the company was established in April, 1935, when the petitioner was allotted 35 shares. In 1959, 35 more shares were allotted to the petitioner. There was some family dispute which led the petitioner to leave the family home situated at 5764 Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi, in 1961, and later the petitioner who was a director was removed from the board of directors of the company on S...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »