Delhi Court March 1979 Judgments
Dharambir and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi373
F.S. Gill, J. (1) The two appellants in this appeal are Dharambir and Mahabir. They were convicted by Shri S. C. Chaturvedi Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 6-11-75 under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . and were sentenced to imprisonment for life.(2) This incident took place at Wazirabad Water Works on 18-10-74 at about 10.45 P.M. when Ram Lila celebration was about to come to a close on that night. Both Dharambir and Mahabir were witnessing the programme. So was Azad (deceased). These appellants and the deceased belonged to a nearby village called Jagatpur. Several other inhabitants of the same village were also present there to witness the function.(3) It is alleged that at about 10.45 P.M. Dharambir armed with a knife and Mahabir armed with a lathi, got up and went to the place where Azad was sitting. Without any remark or throwing any challenge Dharambir started stabbing Azad on his back with the knife. Mahabir then pulled Azad and made him lie on the...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Parshad and ors. Vs. Naresh Chandra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1979
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT356
Prakash Narain, J. (1) Narain Pershad and two others, including Mrs. Uma Pershad, filed this appeal against Naresh Chandra on April 19, 1967 against the judgment and decree of a Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, decreeing Naresh Chandra's suit for possession of property tearing No. 70, Kucha Sukhanand, Dariba Kalan, Delhi, and recovery of Rs. 293.75 on account of arrears of rent (as against only Narain Pershad and Mrs. Uma Pershad) and recovery of Rs. 236.25 on account of damages for use and occupation. Mrs. Uma Pershad died at Delhi on February 29, 1976 leaving behind as her heirs three sons and a daughter. The three sons are said to be Puran Pershad, Mahadev Pershad and the first appellant, Narain Pershad. The daughter's name is Smt. Inder Vati, who is the wife of Shri Suresh Pal and is living at Jullundur. The respondent Naresh Chandra, moved C.M. 409 of 1978 on July 17, 1978 pointing out that Mrs. Uma Pershad, the second appellant, died on February 29, 1976 and since her legal representa...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1159
1. The two appellants in this appeal are Dharambir and Mahabir. They were convicted by Shri S. C. Chaturvedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 6-11-1975 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. This incident took place at Wazirabad Water Works on 18-10-74 at about 10.45 p. m. when Ram Lila celebration was about to come to a close on that night. Both Dharambir and Mahabir were witnessing the programme. So was Azad (deceased). These appellants and the deceased belonged to a nearby village called Jagatpur. Several other inhabitants of the same village were also present there to witness the function,3. It is alleged that at about 10.45 p.m. Dharambir armed with a knife and Mahabir armed with a lathi, got up and went to the place where Azad was sitting. Without any remark or throwing any challenge Dharambir started stabbing Azad on his back with the knife. Mahabir then pulled Azad and made him lie on the ground with his belly dow...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ajit Kaur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and the Collector of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1979
Reported in: 1979CENCUS276D
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi refusing the release of Car No. DHE 775 (Fiat Car) on superdari to the petitioner during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.2. The petitioner's brother-in-law, Shri Tirlok Singh was arrested by the Preventive Branch of the Customs, Central Excise, New Delhi and was taken to Customs House in connection with the seizure of gold from one Mr. Kapur on 12th May, 1977. The car of the petitioner bearing registration No. DHE 775 was also taken in possession by the customs authorities on 12th May, 1977. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that the said Car was illegally and wrongfully seized by the Customs Officer which they had no authority to do so. The petitioner, thereforee, moved an application dated 25th June, 1977 to the Collector of Customs, Central Excise for release ...
Tag this Judgment!Ujjal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT231
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) THESE; are four appeals from a common judgment of the Additional District Judge dated June 15, 1968. Two appeals (R-F.As. 397 and 398 of 1968) are by the owner. The other two (R.F.A. 380 of 1968 and R.F.A. 80 of 1969) are cross-appeals by the taker of the land, the Union of India. This judgment will govern them all. (2) The appellant Ujjal Singh was the owner of certain lands situated in a trans-J'amuna village of Karkarduma. The Government acquired his land for a public purpose. Notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued on November 13, 1959. I Declaration under s. 6 of the Act was made on October 3, 1962. After usual statutory proceedings the collector made two awafrds. (Award No. 144 and 1467 dated February 7, 1963). (Other awards pursu- ant to the notification under s. 4 dated November 13, 1959 are 1804, 2210, 54/69-70, 54-A/70-71, 21/70-71). By Award No. 144 the Government acquired 33 bighas Ii biswas. Under Award No....
Tag this Judgment!Mehrose Ice Cream Afrozen Food Company Vs. Jaswant Rai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1979
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT364; 1979RLR432
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This is a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Ren,t Control Act 1958 (the 'Act') and the relevant facts are as follows.(2) A firm called Mebrose Ice Cream and Frozen' Food Company was the tenant of two shops, and appurtenances, on the ground floor of the market at Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Jaswant Rai was the landlord. On 19th July 1971, the landlord applied under section 14(1)(a) of the Act for an, order for recovery of possession on' the gronud that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent. The tenant entered appearance on 25th August 1971 and sought more time to file a written statement. Adjournments for this purpose werc granted five times, but no written statement was filed. On the last occasion the case was fixed for filing of a written statement on 28th October 1971. No one appeared on behalf of the tenant on that day. Consequently, an order to proceed ex parte against the tenant was made, and the landlord was directed to produce his evidence on 30t...
Tag this Judgment!Parshotam Krishan Vs. Prem Lata
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1979
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT324
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) This is an appeal by the husband from an order of the learned Addl. District Judge dismissing his petition for divorce filed under Section 10, 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage. (2) Parshotam Krishan the appellant and Prem Lata the wife were married at Gurgaon on 17th May, 1969 in accordance with Hindu rites. The petitioner is a technician in the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India. The petitioner's father and mother reside at Karnal and the petitioner is their only son. The respondent lived with her mother and brother (her father was no more) at Gurgoan. (3) The petition was filed on the 30th September, 1972. According to the petitioner the respondent had been hostile to him from the very beginning. His allegation is that the respondent felt that she belonged to a rich family and that she could not live with the petitioner whose resources were not substan tial. She is alleged to have repeatedly complained that the petitioner was a man of poor means...
Tag this Judgment!Youngmen Benefit Chit Fund P. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Jagdish Parsha ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1979
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas858(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. This application by the official liquidator in thecase of Youngmen Benefit Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. (' the company', for short)has been filed against the three respondents under Sections 446 and 477 of theCompanies Act. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are ex parte but respondentNo. 1 is represented by Sri Satish Chandra who states that the first respondent denies liability in respect o the amounts claimed by the officialliquidator. 2. The claim of the company in brief is that the first respondent had been enrolled as a subscriber for chit No. YBC 11/25 under which a sum of Rs. 100 per month was to be paid in 40 monthly Installments commencing from March, 1972. At an auction held on November 12, 1972, the first respondent became the successful bidder and was paid Rs, 2,600 (being the amount of the chit money less a discount of Rs. 1,400) on December 9, 1972. But, under the Rules of the chit fund, the successful bidder had to continue to pay the Installments due in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Simon Carves India Limited Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi687
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) In Chapter Vl-A of the Income-fax Act, 1961 entitled 'Deductions to be made in Computing Total la- come', section 80-MM deals with deductions from income claimed by an Indian company in respect of royalties, etc., received by it from any person in India. Where an assessed receives a royalty commission fees or any other payment from a person carrying on business in India in consideration for (I)'the provision of technical know-how which is likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or materials, or in the installation or erection of the machinery or plant for such manufacture or processing.' or in consideration for (II)'rendering services in connection with the provision of such technical know-how.' under an agreement approved by the Central Government the assessed shall be allowed a deduction from such income of an amount equal to forty per cent thereof in computing his total income (2) The expression ''provision of technical know-how', inter al...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Dev Chadha Vs. Rani Bala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT1
Rajindra Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the dismissal of husband's application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution brought by him. The parties were married on 30 April, 1967. The first male child was born on 1.2.1969. His name is Banti. The second male child was born on 22.11.1974. Ear]ieronl2thNovember,1974 the application under Section 9 of the Act has been brought by the appellant husband alleging that the respondent wife had left the matrimonial home without any justification and he is seeking the restitution.(2) The wife had denied that she was keeping away without any reasonable excuse. It was pleaded that she was treated cruelly and that he used to give her beating. The Trial Court by the impugned order found that the wife was justified in withdrawing from the husband's society and dismissed the application. The husband being aggrieved has come up in this court in appeal. It is common case that the wife left the matrimonial home on 24.6.1974 and is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »