Delhi Court July 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.
Sabha Chand Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1979
Reported in: 1980RLR193
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. (1) These are 7 appeals of owners from different judgments of Additional Distt. Judges. In all the common question is : What was market value of land in 1961 in revenue estate of Mangolpur Kalan 7. Question relates to the amount of compensation payable to the owners of the certain land situated in this village. (2) The owner's land was acquired by the Government pursuant to two notifications dated October 24, 1961 and February 8, 1961, issued under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made five awards, namely, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1434 and 1672. In Awards 1459, 1460 and 1461 he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500.00 per bigha. In Award No. 1434 he divided the acquired land in two blocks. Block 'A' consisted of land which had not been dug up. For this he awarded Rs. 1560.00 per bigha. Block 'B' consisted of land which had been dug up. He awarded Rs. 1,200.00 per bigha for this land. In respect of A...
Laiqan Begam Vs. Abdul Hamid
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1979
Reported in: 1979RLR545
S.S. Chadha,J. (1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has arisen out of the order dated 18th January, 1978 passed by Mrs. Aruna Suresh, Sub-Judge 1st Class Delhi declining an application of the petitioners under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for permission to lead secondary evidence. (2) The petitioners herein and respondents 2 to 6 herein filed a suit against Shri Abdul Wahid, respondent No.1 herein for the recovery of possession of plot of land on the ground that they are the owner's/landlords of the property. The petitioners herein claimed as the heirs of Haji Mohd. Ahmed and respondents 2 to 6 claimed to be the heirs of Mohd. Isaq. It was alleged that the property in dispute was purchased in the name of Haji Mohd. Ahmed and Mohd. Isaq on 8th November, 1943. During the pendency of the suit, a question arose about the ownership of the property in dispute though the contention of respondents 2 to 6 was that the issue of ownership was ...
R.N. Tikka Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT198; 1979RLR578
Avadh Behari, J. (1) This is an owner's appeal against the ordbr of the additional District Judge dated December 12, 1978. (2) The owner's land consisting of 3 bighas comprised in khasra No. 1230/327/1 in the estate of village Kolhapur was acquired by the Government pursuant to a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894(the Act) dated November 13, 1959. In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award(Award No. 2059 dated January 24, 1968). He divided the entire acquired land into three blocks. Land near the Okhla Railway Station was placed by him in block 'A'. For this he awarded Rs. 6415.00 per bigha. Land Resli and Banjar qadim he placed in block 'B'. For this he awarded Rs. 2500/. Gair mumkin Pahar was categorised in block 'C' and for this he awarded Rs. 2000.00 per bigha. The owner's land was placed in block 'B' and he was thereforee, awarded Rs. 2500.00 per bigha, (3) Displeased with the award the owner asked for a reference under. S. 18 of the Act. The...
Jijar Singh Vs. Mohinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi245; 16(1979)DLT146; 1979RLR563
ORDER1. The question referred to the larger Bench is briefly whether the affidavit required to be filed under Section 25B read with the Third Sch. of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act), as amended, shall itself contain the grounds and the facts on the basis of which leave to contest the application for eviction is sought or whether the said grounds and facts having been recited in the accompanying application the affidavit may only refer to the statements made in the application and say that these statements are true to the knowledge of the deponent. The question arises in this way.2. The respondent landlady filed an application for the eviction of the appellant tenant under the summary procedure laid down in Chapter Iiia of the Act which includes Section 25B. The tenant was served with the summons in the form prescribed by the Third Sch. He made an application for leave to contest the application for eviction and swore an affidavit in which the statements made in the accompany...
Union of India Vs. Punjab Colonising Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT58
A.B. Rohatgi, J. (1) These are three appeals. One is by the owner (R.P.A. 172 of 1967) and the other two (R.F.A. 331 of 1968 and S4 of 1971) are by the Union of India, the taker of the land. The common question in these appeals is this: What was th3 market value of the land on November 13,1959 (2) The land in all the three cases was acquired by a common notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) dated November 13, 1959. By this notification land measuring 72 bighas and 17 bids was in the estate of Bahapur was acquired by the Government for a public purpose. This included the lands of Ranjit Singh, appellant in R.F.A. 172 of 1967 and Punjab Colonising Co. respondent in Appeal No. 331 of 1968 as well as of Rajesh and Bhoop Singh, respondents in R.F.A. 84 of 1971. (3) Id due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award (Award No. 1690). He assessed the market value of the whole of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs. 1600.00 per bigha. (4) Dissatisfied with t...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganga Charan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi196; 1979RLR401
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) Although I wavered much while listening to the arguments, on further deliberation I am quite clear that this appeal should be allowed. The problem is the old one, whether Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a suit for possession of immovable property when the plaintiff's claim is founded on title And, whether the fact that the defendant is in possession raises the inference that the plaintiff was dispossessed, if it be not established that the possession of the defendant had a consensual origin. A glance at any commentary on the Limitation Act shows how much these questions have vexed the courts, and the mass of conflicting and confusing case-law they have produced. (2) The relevant facts in the present case arc few and simple. In 1933, the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited purchased a large area of land measuring 52,902 sq. yds. According to the Mills, a small parcel comprising' 2584 sq. ft. of this land was leased to one Murari Lal in J...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Administration Vs. Baluja Glass Compa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC17(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, J.1. This reference is made to us by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi (Lt. Governor) by virtue of the provisions of Section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The circumstances leading up to the reference may be noticed.2. M/s. Baluja Glass Company, Fatehpuri, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the dealer), carry on the business of selling glass sheets and glass panes. The sales of glass sheets and glass panes of the dealer for the period 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967, were assessed to sales tax under Section 11(1) of the aforesaid Act by an assessment order dated 17th September, 1968. The rate at which tax was levied was 5 per cent under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. This assessment was revised on the basis of some information with the assessing authority and proceedings under Section 11A were taken. The turnover of the dealer relating to glass sheets and glass panes was subjected to sales tax at 7 percent un...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Mohinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT220
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (1) Two principles fundamental to domestic inquiries are competitive for recograition and application to the facts of this case. The first plinciple is that if the findings arrived at after the domestic inquiry are based on evidence which has probative value, then there can be no judicial review of these findings on merits and they are final. The second one is that no material or evidence produced against the person against whom the inquiry is held can form the basis of a finding against him unless, he had an opportunity of rebutting such material or evidence. If the evidence consists of the statement of a witness, then the witness should be made available for being cross-examined. If he is not so made available, his statement which is not tested by cross examination, cannot be relied upon to sustain an adverse finding in the inquiry. (2) Respondent No. 2, Mohinder Singh, was employed as a Conductor on a bus belonging to the appellant, Delhi Transport Corporation O...
Kaila Devi Vs. Banarsi Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT158; 1979RLR553
Harish Chandra, J. (1) This is appellant landlady's application under order 6 rule 17 and order 23 rule 1 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure filled 11 years after the filling of eviction petition. (2) The eviction petition was filled in January, 1968 on the ground that the landlady bonafide required the premises for residence. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and dismissed the petition by order dated 29 9.1971. Anappeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal on 24.9.1973 after affirming the aforesaid finding. A second appeal was filled in the Court in December, 1973. The present application was filled in January, 1979. (3) In order to understand the prayers mad.; by the applicant in proper perspective, it may be useful to recall the controversy between the parties in the present litigation. (4) In the petition for eviction filled by the applicant landlady, the ground pressed in ai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›