Delhi Court July 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.
D.P. Wool Company Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi27; [1979]44STC447(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The petitioners in this and the connected writ petitions pray that the various orders of assessments of Sales-tax made against them and the proceedings for recovery of sales-tax started against them be quashed and their claims for refund of sales-tax already paid but rejected by the Sales-tax authorities be upheld on the following two grounds, namely : (1) that the goods sold by them were formerly exempt from payment of sales-tax under the Second Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941 as applied to Delhi. These exemptions were illegally withdrawn by the Government, and (2) section 3 of the Delhi Sales-tax (Amendment an,d Validation) Act, 1976, which purports to validate the levy, assessment and collection of Sales-tax on these commodities is unconstitutional inter alias for the following reasons : 1.Circumvention of Articles 141 and 265 of the Constitution; and 2. Violation of Article 19(1)(f) thereof.(2) These claims are denied by the Government on...
Chloride and Excide Batteries (Eastern) Ltd. Vs. B. Uma Wati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi506
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 poses a neat question of law. Does a final decree for Partition of property confer title to individual shares from the day on which it is drawn up and signed, or, retrospectively, from the date of the judgment Seeing that suits for partition are so frequent, this question, one would imagine, must have arisen numerous times ; yet surprisingly there 19 no exact authority. The relevant facts are as follows. (2) In 1958, Chloride and Exide Batteries (Eastern) Limited obtained from Mool Chand Rastogi a lease of the first floor of the house at 125 Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, with a garage and two servant quarters. The premises were taken for use as a residence by the Area Manager of the company. (3) In 1971, Ashok Kumar, the minor son of Mool Chand Rastogi, instituted a suit on the original side of this court for partition of various joint properties, including the house at Sunder Nagar. That suit was c...
Prem NaraIn Vs. Chanderwati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT182
(1) Held that acts done by mortgage in possession bona fide and pujently in the ordinary course of management, Of Property Act. The section is not restricted to agricultural land but applies also to urban immovable property though ordinarily the principle applies to the management of agricultural and Where the mortgage had unquestionable authority of the mortgagors to reconstruct the (urban) mortgaged premises, to let out the same and were at liberty also to increase or decrease the rent, and they managed the property well, it was held that the mortgagors were, bound by the leases created by the mortgages, even after redemption, and the possession thereof, illegally taken by the decree - holders was ordered to be restored to the lessess under 0. 21. R. 100 Civil Procedure Code(2) Held that before the time spent by the decree-holders in their misguided proceedings in the lower courts could be excluded as prayed for by them, it was necessary for the decree-holders to convince the court t...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Doon Apartments (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi84; 1979RLR7
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration that it is entitled to put up a cooling tower on the roof of the third floor of the defendant's building and for a mandatory injunction against the defendant to allow the plaintiff and its workmen to go to the roof and construct a cooling tower and maintain it and also a permanent injunction that the defendant is not to interfere with the working of the cooling tower after its construction by the plaintiff. On 8-3-1978 the suit was filed along with I.A. 972 of 1978 for grant of interim injunction without issue of notice to the defendant under order 39 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, the principal part of which is as follows : 'The Court shall in, all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given, to the opposite party.'An ex parte interim injunction ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›