Delhi Court July 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.
M.L. Sachdeva Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT204
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) On 9th January 1978 Shri R.L. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, framed charges against the petitioner M.L. Sachdeva and 5 others under Section 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code: the other accused were also charge-sheeted for various other offences. M.L. Sachdeva has come in revision against the aforesaid order. The contention urged on behalf of M.L. Sachdeva is that there is no evidence on record connecting him with the crime. I have been taken through the statement record and I find that there is no material to connect M.L. Sachdeva with the offence of conspiracy. The approver Om Prakash did give evidence that M.L. Sachdeva, Section Officer, working in Udyog Bhavan, had visited Amritsar and he was introduced to him by his co-accused Chaman Lal but stated that he was not in a position to identify that officer. Except the above there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. In this view the petition has to be...
SaleemuddIn and ors. Vs. SharafuddIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi39; 14(1978)DLT22
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (Oral)(1) This is a contempt petition under ss. 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act). As far back as 1964, Sharafuddin and Shahabuddid made an application for ejectment of their tenant, Mohammed Din. from premises No. 7687, Ward No. Xiv, Gali Takhat Wali Qasabpura, Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 18th August, 1967. The order of eviction was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlords. Mohammed Din did not file any appeal. So the order of eviction became final. (2) In 1968 the tenant Mohammed Din died leaving behind a widow, three sons and two daughters. In January, 1975 the widow also died. On 27th February, 1976, one of the tenant's son and daughter, namely, Saleemuddin and Mst. Ameequan, filed objections under ss. 3 and 4 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976. They claimed that they were covered by the definition of the term 'tenant' and could not thereforee be ejected in exe...
Nav Bharat Construction Co., New Delhi and anr. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi75
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act , 1940, which has been registered as a suit. The facts of the case are that the petitioners had entered into a contract with the Union of India for the construction of some building at Rampur. There was an arbitration clause, Clause 25, in that agreement. Due to certain disputes having arisen, the petitioners had requested for the appointment of an arbitrator on June 29, 1976 Shri H. C. Gupta was appointed as arbitrator. Later this arbitrator resigned and on March 25, 1977 Kumari K. P. Sarojni was appointed as the arbitrator. The proceedings remained pending for some time before her but on August 26, 1977, she passed an order saying that the period for making the award had expired and she had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. She also said that no assent had been given for extending the time for making the award.2. The petitioners then applied to the Chief Engineer to appoint another arbitrator in place of...
Harbhagwan Dass Wadhwa Vs. Ishwar Devi Majbour
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT165
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is husband's appeal against the divorce decree to the Additional District Judge dated 4th March, 1978. (2) The appellant Har Bhagwan Dass Wadhwa was married to the respondent Ishwar Devi Majbour on 1st August, 1971 at Bahadurgarh. On 2nd August. 1971, the parties cams to Delhi. The wife lived in her husband's house at Kalkaji where he was residing with his brothers, sisters and widowed mother. On 29th September, 1971, there was Namkaran ceremony of the wife's brother's son at Bahadurgarh, She went there to attend the ceremony. The husband was also invited. He did not go. On 1st October, 1971 .the wife returned to the husband and started living with him. On 9th November, 1971, she left the husband for his father's house at Bahadurgarh. Her case is that she was illtreated and beaten in the month of September and thereforee she had to leave the husband's house. (3) The wife remained away from the husband till 26th January, 1972. On 26th January, 1972, she...
Raj Bala Vs. Pramod Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT153
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a wife's appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (the Act). On 14th May, 1976, the husband Promod Kumar brought a petition against his wife Raj Bala under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for judicial separation. While the petition was pending the Parliament passed the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1976 (Amendment Act) which came into force on 27th May, 1976. This Act amended the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. Section 39 of the Amendment Act provides : Special provisions as to pending cases. '(1)All petitions and proceedings in causes and matters matrimonial which are pending in any court at the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, shall be dealt with and decided by such Court:- (I)if it is a -petition or proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, then so far as may be as if it had been originally instituted therein under the Hindu Marriage Act, as amended by this Act; (II)if it is a petition or a proceedin...
Pramilla Khosla Vs. Rajnish Kumar Khosla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi78; 14(1978)DLT22B
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) In this case a wife has filed a petition under sections 22 and 23 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869. She prays for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty by the husband. The petition commences with the statement that the parties were married on 9th April 1972 at New Delhi 'according to Arya Samaj Rites'. In the second paragraph it is said that the petitioner professes the Christian religion while the respondent professes the Hindu religion'. Thereafter, the matrimonial history is narrated with which I am not presently concerned.(2) After being served with the petition, the first thing the husband did, even before filing his written statement, was to move an application under Order 7 rule Ii and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. This is the application which I have now to decide. The contention of the husband is that, on the face of it, the petition by the wife is not marntainable under the Indian Divorce Act as it admits that the marr...
Surjit Singh Vs. J. Chawla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT179; 1979RLR20
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) This is a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent control Act 1958. The appellant is the tenant of the second floor of a house No. 6/29, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The premises in his possession comprise just one room, the barsati. He was inducted into the premises on i2th December 1968 at a rent of Rs. 130.00 per month. (2) On 19th August 1972, the respondent who is the landlords, instituted a petition for recovery of possession against the appellent. A number of grounds were taken in that petition, but the Additional Rent Controller made an order for recovery of possession only under section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him. The other grounds were rejected. This order was made on 1st March 1974. An appeal by the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 6th January 1978, and the findings of the...
Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Prem Chand Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT73; 1978RLR584
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This is an appeal by the heirs and legal representatives of a tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 1, 1978, by which the order of the Additional Rent Controller passing an order of eviction was affirmed. (2) This appeal raises an interesting question of law. The relevant facts are these: the deceased Suraj Prakash was a tenant of the premises described as a shop situate in premises No. 115-A, Kamla Nagar at a monthly rent of Rs. 40. The landlord Prem Chand filed an application for the eviction of Suraj Prakash and Sham Sunder on two grounds (1) non-payment of arrears of rent and (2) misusers of the premises. (3) Suraj Prakash in reply asserted that he alone is the tenant and Sham Sunder has got no interest or right in the tenanted premises.. The above plea of the tenant was upheld and it is no longer in controversy. The plea of the landlord as regards the non-payment of the rent was that the tenant was in arrears of rent since October ...
Bhagwati Pershad Vs. Om Perkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR26
Avadh Behari, J. (1) This is a petition for revision under the proviso to S. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). (2) Om Prakash and Mohinder Kumar Bansal claiming to be the owners and landlords brought a petition for eviction of their tenant Bhagwati Pershad from the ground floor of premises No. 1627 Madrassa Road Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for themselves and the members of the family dependant on them u/s 14(1)(e) of the Act. (3) The tenant made an affidavit for leave to contest the eviction petition under s. 25B(4) of the Act He raised a number of defenses, The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 6th January, 1978 gave leave to the tenant to contest the eviction petition only on the ground of bona fide requirement and about the sufficiency of the accommodation with the landlords. On other points raised by the tenant he declined him leave. The tenant has filed this revision. H...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Raj Paul Chawla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR574(Delhi)
Dalip K. Kapur, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question for decision of this court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the determination of the assessed's net wealth the assessed was entitled to deduction of income-tax payable by him on the income disclosed under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965?'2. The assessse in question, Shri Raj Paul Chawla, was a partner in the firm, M/s. Diwan Chand Chawla & Co., and the assessment years in question are the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. No return had been filed by the assessed originally, but subsequently he made a voluntary disclosure under Section jS8 of the Finance Act, 1965, showing Rs. 87,000 as his undisclosed income; on that basis he became liable to pay tax amounting to Rs. 52,200 some time after March, 1965. After the settlement of the income-tax, liability, proceedings r...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »