Delhi Court October 1979 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.
Nirmal Construction and Finance Company and anr. Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1979
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1; 1981LabIC1012; 1980RLR508
V.S. Dbshpamde, J. (1) The Question. A question arising with increasing frequency is how far and when promissory estoppel binds the Government. The answer broadly is that like all judicial review, it is available against ordinary administrative action, but not against policy decisions which are not aimed against individuals but are based on general considerations and public interest. This distinction will help to decide this and the connected writ petitions.(2) The Context: Entry 41 of List I of the Seventh Schedule read with Article 246(1) of the Constitution gives exclusive power to Parliament to legislate about trade and commerce with foreign countries and import and export across customs frontiers. The executive power of the Union of India under Article 73 of the Constitution extends to all matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make law). The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (herein called the Act), gives the Central Government powers to prohibit or restrict ...
Basheshar Nath Setia Vs. P.C. Tandon and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT202
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a revision petition of the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller dated July 17, 1979. The respondents are the owners of premises No. 14/17, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. These premises were let to the tenant Basheshar Nath Sethia on November 14, 1963. The tenant continues to be in possession of the said premises. One of the owners landlords P. C. Tandon was a Government servant at the relevant time. Now he has retired. As a Government servant he was occupying a Government accommodation allotted to him in B-13/476 Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. (2) On September 9, 1975 the Government issued a general order requiring Government servants to vacate Government residential accommodation by December 31, 1975 if they owned a residential house in the Union Territory of Delhi. This order applied to Tandon also. He informed his office that he owns a residential house in East Patel Nagar. The Government thereforee, required him to vacate the Government residential ac...
B.N. Sekia Vs. P.C. Tandon and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi68; 1980(1)DRJ22; 1980RLR49
Rohtagi, J.1. This is a revision petition of the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller dated July 17, 1979. The respondents are the owners of premises No. 14/17, East Patel Nagar New Delhi. These premises were let to the tenant Basheshar Nath Setia on November 14, 1963. The tenant continues to he in possession of the said premises. One of the owners-landlords P.C. Tandon was a Government servant at the relevant time. Now he has retired. As a Government servant he was occupying a Government accommodation allotted to him in B-13/476 Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.2. On Sept. 9, 1975 the Government issued a general order requiring Government servants to vacate Government residential accommodation by December 31, 1975 if they owned a residential house in the Union Territory of Delhi. This order applied to Tandon also. He informed his office that he owns a residential house in East Patel Nagar. The Government thereforee, required him to vacate the Government residential accommodation. He...
Qammar-ud-dIn and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)211; [1981]129ITR703(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. Both these references can be disposed of by a common judgment. They arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 1965-66, in the case of M/s, Qammar-ud-din and Sons, Delhi. One of the references, namely, I.T.R. No. 30/72, was made by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (' the Act ' in short), referring the following question for the decision of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the return filed on 20-10-1965 could be held to be an invalid return by reason of the fact that it was not accompanied by the profit and loss account '2. Subsequently, under Section 256(2) of the Act, this court directed the Tribunal to refer also the following question for decision :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was concealment of income by the assessed and that the penalty was vali...
Sangeeta Shrivastava Vs. U.N. Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi27
Sachar, J. (1) The Petitioner in this writ petition challenges, the order of the respondent No. 2, University of Delhi, in refusing to allow the petitioner to take the examination of M.A. (P) held in April 1979 This petition was filed on 6th April 1979 and pending the disposal of the petition the petitioner was allowed to appear for the M.A. (P) History examination commencing on 7th April 1979. She has since taken the examination but her result has been withheld to await the decision in the present writ petition. (2) The petitioner passed her B. A. (Hons.) History examination in 11978 from Delhi University. She was a. student in Indraprastha College women. She secured 354 marks out of 800 marks equivalent to 44.25 per cent. For admission to the Post Graduate course candidates desirous of seeking admission to M.A. must fulfill the requisite condition of having passed with prescribed percentage as detailed in the appendix I of the Bulletin of Information. At page 9 of the Bulletin Note 1...
Kamal Rani Vs. Chand Rani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi188
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of this court sitting on the original side whereby a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immoveable property has been decreed. (2) The appellant and the respondents entered into an agreement dated August 26, 1976 (Exhibit Public Witness 8/28) whereby the appellant agreed to sell her house and property comprised of a freehold plot bearing No. 30, Block K, Green Park, New Delhi, measuring 311 sq. yards with a double storeyed residential house constructed thereon along with fixtures and fitting for a sum of Rs. 1,78,000 to the first respondent Smt. Chand Rani. The second respondent Shri Niranjan Nath, is the husband of the first respondent Smt. Chand Rani. A sum of Rs. 30,000 was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement, Exhibit Public Witness 8/28. A further sum of Rs. 98,000 was stipulated as payable within 10 days of the execution of the said agreement and the ...
Jai Kishan Dass Vs. Jasjit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-1979
Reported in: 1980CENCUS210D; 1982(10)ELT944(Del)
S.B. Wad, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 8, 1972 of a learned single Judge (Dalip Kapur J.) dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 680 of 1968. In the writ petition the petitioner had challenged the legality of the show cause notice issued by the Gold Control Administrator on 26th of July, 1968. By the said show cause notice, the administrator proposed to enhance the penalty awarded to the appellant. The learned single Judge held that the show cause notice was legal and proper and dismissed the writ petition.2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :-On 26th of August, 1965 the officials of the Central Excise Collectorate and the police officials raided the business premises of the appellant. The raiding party seized the unaccounted primary gold and jewellery under the defense of India Act (Gold Control) Rules, 1962. On March 12, 1966 the Collector of Central Excise issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why ...
Synthetic Moulders Vs. Samperit Aktiergeselshaft
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1979
Reported in: 1980RLR263
V.S. Deshpanda, C.J.(1) Counsel had requested that the whole appeal itself may be heard. We accordingly heard it. After having heard the learned counsel we think the real question at issue is this. Under Section 28 of the Trade & Merchandise Mark Act, 1958, the respondent- plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trade mark 'Matador' in respect of the combs manufactured by it in Austria inasmuch as the said trade mark has been registered in India. The grant of temporary injunction is governed by the well-known considerations of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience. A prima facie case is made out in respect of a legal right. But injunction is an equitable remedy. It need not follow invariably on the proof of legal rights. Had that been so the whole distinction between law and equity which is now codified in the Indian statutes would disappear. The grant of temporary injunction has to be in accordance with order 39 of C.P.C. and not according to ...
Madhuban Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NaraIn Dass Gokal Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1979
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT371
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This appeal under section 483 of the Companes Act, 1956 by the appellant company, 13 directed against the order dated April, 1, 1970 of the Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he ordered it to be wound up. (2) The appellant-company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913. in or about the year 1954 with its registered office in the Film Colony, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The principal objects for which the company was incorporated were, inter alias the carrving on of the business of the Management of Theatres, palaces, halls cinematographic shows and exhibitions The authorised capital of the company was rupees one lakh, divided into 8000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10.00 each and 200 preference shares of Rs 100.00 each Its subscribed and issued capital was Rs. 32 700/ , its paid up capital was about Rs. 24,000.00 only. It had 15 members out of which seven were its directors. (3) The respondent obtained a decree dated 4th December, 1957 against the appellant...
Ellora Industries Vs. Banarsi Das Goela and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi254
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a defendants' appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge dated July 10, 1967.(2) The plaintiffs are a partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Banaras'i Dass and Brothers at Chandni Chowk, Delhi since the year 1949. They are the registered proprietors of the trade mark 'ELORA' registered under number 175751 in class 14 as of the date August Ii, 1956 in respect of watches, time-pieces, clocks and their parts. The trade mark has been renewed from time to time and is subsisting. The plaintiffs have been selling clocks with the trade mark 'ELORA' since 1955.(3) In October 1962 the plaintiffs found an advertisement issued by the defendants 'ELLORA INDUSTRIES' with 'ELLORA' as the trade mark for time-pieces. By a notice in writing dated December 26, 1962 the plaintiffs called upon the defendants to desist from manufacturing, using, selling or offering for sale their goods under to mark 'ELLORA'. The defendants by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »