Delhi Court January 1980 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.
J.S. Sodhi Vs. Amarjit Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT386
A.B. Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a husband's appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge dated September 15, 1978, refusing him a decree of divorce.(2) The appellant Sq. Ldr. J. S. Sodhi was married to the respondent Smt.Amarjit Kaur on January 25, 1970 at Delhi, she being 23 and he 31 years of age. They have two daughters born in 1971 and 1976. On February 21, 1977 the husband petitioned for divorce under Section 13(l)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) on the ground that the wife had treated him with cruelty. The judge dismissed the petition. Now there is an appeal to this court. (3) During this period of seven years the husband was stationed at Bareilly, Belgaum and Delhi. The history of this marriage can be thus sketched in three phases. (1) At Bareilly (4) From January to March, 1970, the husband and wife stayed at Bareilly. In March 1970 wife's parents visited Bareilly. The husband took them to the club. They had dinner at Kwality. In the night at about 10 or ...
Laxmi Kant Mukt Vs. Jitender Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT40
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is a second appeal by the tenant seeking reversal of the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, passed on March 15, 1979 dismissing the appeal of the tenant but allowing the appeal filed by the landlord, and directing the tenant's eviction under S. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) The first question required to be decided at the threshold is whether the respondent is the owner of the demised premises? If he is not, his requirement of those premises even if proved to be bonafide cannot be made the ground for tenant's eviction. Admittedly, the respondent herein had been held to be the landlord as also the owner of the demised premises in an earlier suit which he had filed for recovery of Rs. 5.000.00 on account of arrears of rent against the present appellant, by the trial court which finding was affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. The tenant's second appeal (R. S. A. No. 105 of 1969) was dismissed on September 30, 1975, by.Avadh Behari, J....
Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-v Vs. R. Dalmia (Decd.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR399(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. These are two petitioners by the revenue under S. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for an order directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case to this court and to refer certain questions of law formulated by the revenue arising out of the order dated March 24, 1975, of the Tribunal. At the conclusion of the hearing on January 4, 1980, we announced our decision. We dismissed the applications. Now, we give our reasons. 2. The Tribunal by order dated February 13, 1976, held that no question of law arose and the findings in question were essentially findings of fact. The Tribunal rejected the applications made to it under S. 256(1) of the Act. Hence these petitions to this court. 3. The respondent late Shri R. Dalmia, was the assessed. In the assessment year 1954-55, Rs. 14 lakhs were added to his income from undisclosed sources because he could not explain to the satisfaction of the revenue authorities the origin of a cash credit of a corr...
L. Bansi Dhar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi415; [1980]123ITR58(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. 1. In this group of reference the following three questions have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,49,874 received by L. Bansi Dhar from the insurance company on account of accident insurance policy covering the risk of the life of his father, L. Murli Dhar, is correctly treated as the amount of Shri Bansi Dhar in his individual capacity and not of the HUF of which he is the karta 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend and interest earned in the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,49,874 is correctly treated as belonging to Shri Bansi Dhar, in his individual capacity and not to the Hindu undivided family of which he is the karta 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the dividend on 400 shares of M/s. Bharat Ram Charat Ram (P.) Ltd. acquired in the ...
Girdhari Lal Vs. G.C. JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT269; 1980RLR299
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Competent Authorit (2) The petitioner Girdhari Lal is a tenant in respect of two rooms and a court yard under the respondent Shrimati Pushplata Sud in the ground floor of House No. 956/15 in Gali Kumharan, Paharganj, New Delhi. On 4th June, 1976, the landlady made an application for permission to the Competent Authority under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The Competent Authority granted the permission. The tenant now seeks to challenge this order on the ground that it is without jurisdiction and illegal. (3) Girdhari l admittedly has three major sons. They are Kewal Krishan, Tilak Raj and Rajinder Kumar. The landlady alleged that these three sons were living with their father Girdhari Lal and they were making individual contribution for the running of the household and other expenses of the family. The Competent Authority found ...
Rajinder Singh Joon Vs. Tara Wanti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi213; 17(1980)DLT295; 1980RLR290
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a husband's appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge dated August 9, 1979 refusing him divorce on the ground of cruelty.(2) The parties were married at Delhi. The Saptpadi was performed on June 28, 1973. There is some controversy about the date of marriage. According to the wife the marriage took place on June 27, 1970 when admittedly they started living together and had a child in 1971 who subsequently died. The husband's case, on the other hand, is that the marriage must be held to have been performed on June 28, 1973 when Saptpadi was performed and that is the date which ought to be regarded as the date of marriage. The learned trial judge recorded a finding that the marriage took place on June 27, 1970. In my opinion nothing turns on this issue. Admittedly the parties were legally married and they were living as husband and wife. The army authorities were also informed about marriage. A 'casualty' notification was issued in the Arm...
Sunita Sharma Vs. the Administrator, Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT525
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) By our order dated 9th January, 1980 we had accepted the hebeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the detenu Shri Shyam Kishan Sharma and ordered his release from custody. In the said order we had indicated that the reasons For our decision would be given subsequently. The reasons for allowing the writ petition and ordering release of the detenu are given hereinafter. (2) According to the petitioner the premises of the detenu were raided on 5th August, 19 79 by the Customs Officer. This raid was organized after a large number of watches had been seized at the Palam Airport on 4th August, 1979 nothing incriminating was recovered except that some trade goods like cosmetics, whisky, camera, fabrics etc. of foreign origin valued at Rs. 8,500.00 were recovered and seized. At about 12 noon on 5-8-79 the detenu was taken into custody. An application for bail was filed on 6-8-79 and the detenu was ordered to be released on bail 31-8-79. On 23rd September, 1979 the detenu...
Anand Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT334
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This appeal by the Company arises from the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the application of the Company under order 34 rule 5 Civil Procedure Code and confirming the sale of the Company's property in question namely, 88 Sunder Nagar, New Delhi in favor of M/s Amarjit Singh Johar & Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the auction purchaser').(2) The relevant facts for the purpose of this appeal are that the Company besides being indebted to a large number of other creditors also owed a sum of approximately rupees ten lakhs to the Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). The said debt was secured in January 1966 by an equitable mortgage being created of property No. 88 Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. The said property was at one time claimed to be the personal property of its then Managing Director Shri R.L. Anand but it is admitted that now the property is that of the Company.(3) Two proceedings were originally initiated against the Company. One...
Claridges Hotel P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Ci ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: [1980]123ITR844(Delhi)
Khanna, J.1. These 14 writ petitions moved under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, raise common questions of facts and law and are, thereforee, being taken together. As the narration of facts would hereinafter show, they arise out of the initial transaction of sale for Rs. 16 lakhs of property No. 12, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, on July 19, 1972, by its 13 co-owners in favor of the Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. One of the writs is by Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd., and the other 13 are by each of the 13 co-owners. These co-owners had held different shares in that in that property as under :- (i) Shri Triloki Nath ... 1/4th share(ii) Shri Bhola Nath ... 1/20th ,,(iii) Shri Mahadev Prasad ... 1/16th ,,(iv) Shri Santosh Kumar ... 1/12th ,,(v) Shrimati Shashi Prabha ... 1/16th ,,(vi) Smt. Krishna Khanna ... 1/12th ,,(vii) Smt. Raj Karni ... 1/12th ,,(viii) Shri Naresh Khanna ... 1/20th ,,(ix) Shri Rajesh Khanna ... 1/20th ,,(x) Shri Dinesh Khanna ... 1/20th ,,(xi) Shri Ramesh Khanna...
Parveen Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT297; 1980RLR381
Charanjit Tulwar, J. (1) The appellant, Parveen Kumar, has challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Act Liv of 1959). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a .fine of Rs. 200.00 under the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under the second count, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by his order dated September 21, 1979 for causing grievous injuries with a finife to Rakesh Kumar Jain (Public Witness I ). (2) The prosecution case, in brief, is that Rakesh Kumar Jain, a resident of Dehra Dun, had come to Delhi on Februray 18, 1979. On February 21, 1979, the day of occurrence, he learnt that the accused, whom he knew earlier as they had been Jiving in the same street in Delhi had stabbed his uncle. On intervention by 'Mohallawalas' the incident, which happened two weeks before had not been reported to the police. On that very day a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›