Delhi Court August 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.
S.B. Khanna Vs. Triloknathtrehan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi557
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The tenanted premises are in the second floor of the house. The landlord terminated the tenancy by a notice dated February 18, 1976. He made the eviction application on April 6, 1976. In the application the tenanted premises were said to be one Barsati with temporary kitchen, one open bath-cum-latrine on the second floor which were also shown in red in the plan attached. The portion in red did not include the open space. The ground for eviction was that the landlord required the premises bona fide for residence of himself and the members of his family dependent upon him as the first floor in which the family was residing had become insufficient for their requirement. (2) The tenant filed a written statement on August 25, 1976. He contended that he was a tenant of the entire second floor including the open space and one bath-room on the ground floor which was illegally occupied by the landlord. He also denie...
Som Nath Raina Vs. Kirpa Ram Bhateja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT327
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) In my opinion the second appeal has to be allowed as the issue raised is fully covered by the decHc'n of Avadh Behari-J. in R. K. Pareekh v. Uma Verma 1978 (2) lkt CJ 423. In that view the civil revision does not survive for consideration and is liable to be dismissed. (2) It is necessary to state a few brief facts. The respondent landlord filed a petition against the present petitioner/appellant seeking the eviction of the latter under the terms of the proviso to clause (e) of sub-section I of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The application was dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 25B of the Act introduced by the amendments of 1975-76. Summons was issued in the form specified in the third schedule to the tenant and served on him on 21st October, 1976. He had to file his application for leave to contest the landlord's petition in the appropriate manner specified in the section on or before 5th of November, 1976. But this appli...
Shamlal Etc. Vs. Om Perkash Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1979
Reported in: 1979RLR569
M.L. Jain, J.(1) Om Parkash filed a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and acquisition by the tenants of some other premises. The second ground was not proved and is no more a matter in controversy. It was alleged by the landlord that the premises in dispute were let out to Banarsi Dass for residential purposes. Banarsi Dass appears to have died in 1965 end is survived by his widow, four sons and three daughters. It was claimed that the premises were required for the residence of the owner himself and ten members of his family. The family comprised himself, wife, aged grand-father, retired father mother, school going one son and two daughters and college, going one son and one daughter. They live with him .and were dependent on him. He had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed eviction. The Rent Control Tribunal by its judgment dated December 13, 1978, dismissed the appe...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1979
Reported in: [1983]144ITR280(Delhi)
Sachar, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court: '1. Whether the expenses of Rs. 74,366 incurred on foreign tours of Shri Charat Ram, Shri Bharat Ram and some of the officers of the assessed-company represent an element of actual cost of machinery arid plant, etc., to the assessed and, as such, depreciation and development rebate are admissible with reference to this amount also 2. Whether the expenses of Rs. 23,399 incurred on foreign tours of technical officers of the company represent an element of actual cost of machinery and plant to the assessed and, as such, depreciation and development rebate are admissible with reference to this amount also ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessed in organising football tournament was an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961...
Addl Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-i Vs. Delhi CloThe and General M ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1979
Reported in: [1983]144ITR283(Delhi)
SACHAR J.-The is is a Reference under s. 256(1 of there I.T. Act, 1961, made by there Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and referred there following question of law of the is Court :'1. Whether there expenses of Rs. 71,312 incurred on foreign tours of Shri Bharat Ram and some of there officers of there assessed-company represents an element of actual cost of machinery, plant, etc., to there assessed and such depreciation and development rebate are admissible within Reference to the is amount also ?2. Whether there expenses of Rs. 45,087 incurred on foreign tours of technical officers of there company represent and element of actual cost of machinery, plant, etc., to there assessed and, as such, depreciation and development rebate are admissible within Reference to the is amount also?3. Whether, on there facts and in there circumstances of there case, there expenditure incurred by there assessed in organising football tournaments was an allowable deduction u/s. 37 of there Income-tax Act, 1...
Murari Lal and ors. Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1979
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT67
A.B. Rohatgi, J. (1) This appeal raises the question of liability of a common carrier. (2) In the month of June 1958 Delhi Cloth Mills Limited (Mills) entrusted 54 bales of cloth and conyarn to the Delhi Dehradun Transport Company (carriers) for carriage from Delhi to Calcutta. The carriers issued 6 goods receipts, particulars whereof are as under : _______________________________________________________________________ Sl. No- O.R. No. Date Amount Exhibit No. in the case 1. 383 3.6.1958 Rs. 1500-00 Ex. P3 2. 399 4.6.1958 Rs. 7024-00 Ex. P4 3. 2008 5.6.1958 Rs. 9995-00 Ex. P5 4. 2011 5.6.1958 Rs. 3714-97 Ex. P6 5. 2034 7.6.1958 Rs. 4991-00 Ex. P7 6. 374 3.6.1958 Rs. 4716-42 Ex. P8 ___________ Total: Rs.31,941-39 ________________________________________________________________________ (3) The consigner of these goods was the Mills. The consignee was their branch manager at Calcutta. The carriers agreed to carry the goods for reward from Delhi to Calcutta and deliver them at the destinat...
Hem Chand Baid Vs. Prem Wati Parekh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi1; 16(1979)DLT191
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This second appeal filed by the tenant appellant raises the question of interpretation of Clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. The order of eviction was passed against the tenant under the said clause. Clause (h) which affords ground of eviction to a landlord reads as follows ; 'that the tenant has whether before or afer commencement of this Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence;' (2) Admittedly the appellant-tenant had acquired possession of new premises at Y-42 Hauz Khas, New Delhi on May 18, 1967 and reverted to the suit premises in October 1967 before the notice of termination of tenancy was given by the landlord. The learned single Judge (B.C. Misra J) faced some difficulty in reconciling certain decision of this Court and Supreme Court. The learned single Judge has, thereforee, set out the following questions of law for our decision: 'The question of law that needs to ...
R.C. JaIn Vs. S.K. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT142; 1979RLR560
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 is directed against the order dated December 23, 1978 pasted by Shri J.D Kapoor, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi declining an application for leave to defend filed under the provisions of Section 25B of the said Act and directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises. (2) The Respondents-landlords filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 of the said Act for eviction of the petitioner from the premises comprising of two rooms, passage, verandah, kitchen, W.C. court yard and a bath bearing municipal No. 6404/2, Block No. 7-B (popularly known as Block No. 7), Gali No. 4, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Ward No. 16 New Delhi. Summons were issued to the petitioner-tenant in the form specified in 3rd Schedule. On the receipt of the summons issued by the Additional Rent Controller, the tenant moved an application for leave to defend a...
NaraIn Devi Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT258; 1979RLR493
(1) The facts of this revision are that petitioner filed an application in the Court of the Rent Controller Delhi, against respondent U/S 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking his eviction from her house No. D-53 Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The respondent moved an application for leave to defend which was granted to him on 3-4-1978. He filed written statement contesting the petition on several grounds. Controller by his order dt. 1.12.78, dismissed the eviction petition. He held that petitioner is in bonafide requirement of the premises but rejected the application on the ground that the service of notice U/s 106 Tpa is not proved and that the application related only to a part of the premises. Hence, this revision by the land lady. (2) The learned counsel for the respondent contended at the very outset that no revision lies against the impugned order. But, this contention cannot be accepted. This court has been of the view that revision contemplated by the proviso of Sec. 25B(8) d...
Bachittar Singh Vs. Inderjit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT336
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a criminal revision by Shri Bachhittar singh, a private party and brother of the deceased Manjit Singh, against. acquittal of Inderjit Singh, Som Nath, Jit Singh, Manmohan Singh and Prithipal Singh by Shri P.L. Singla, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi by his order dated 27th November, 1976 for various charges like 302/452/147/148/149 Ipc and also against acquittal of Inderjit Singh on the charge u/s. 25 of the Arms Act. (2) The occurrence in the present case is stated to be an offshoot of election rivalry arising out of the election for Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee which was held in Delhi on 30th March, 1975. The complainant-petitioner Bachittar Singh and Bawa Narain Singh and another were candidate in Ward No.44. On 31st March,1975,the result of the election was declared and Bawa Narain Singh was declared elected. The supporters of Bawa Narain Singh took out a procession to celebrate his success. The supporters yelled in front of the residence of Bachittar ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »