Delhi Court October 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.
EdwIn Stephen and anr. Vs. Sada Nand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT88; 1981(2)DRJ2
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The question for decision is whether the Controller has power to revive eviction proceedings, when the eviction order passed against the minors, without appointment of a proper person be a guardian under order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'), has been held to be a nullity by the Controller during execution proceedings. (2) This question has arisen in this case and the relevant facts are : Fateh Chand Wadhwa, predcessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 4 filed and aplication for eviction from a portion of the property No. 5156, Ward Xi, Faiz Ganj, opposite Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi, against respondents 5 to 10 and appellant No. 2 Rodrick Stephen, Veena, Anil and Vijay respondents 7 to 10 in this appeal were described as minors. The eviction was claimed under various clauses of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 ...
Sat Perkash Vs. O.K. Poddar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1980
Reported in: 1981RLR288
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Landlord applied for permission u/s 19(1) to sue petitioner for eviction pleading that a house built at Naraina by tenant in the name of his wife, was his and he was a man of means. Tenant denied this and also claimed that his tenancy was for residential-cum- Commercial. (2) By order dated 13.3.70 the permission sought for was granted. It was held by the competent authority that the premises in question had been taken by the petitioner for residential purposes and had been admittedly used by him as such. It was further held that the petitioner had taken another residence being House No. 8932, Shidipura Delhi and that if permission is granted he would not create another Slum. It was also found by the competent authority that the petitioner had got a house built in Naraina extension, Delhi and that he is a man of means and was in a position to acquire an alternative accommodation in case of his eviction. (3) The aforesaid order has been challenged in this petition und...
Subhash Mehta Vs. S.P. Chaudhry
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT97; 1981(2)DRJ7
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed by the tenant- appellant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated August 18, 1979 by which his appeal was dismissed and the order of the Additional Controller dated February 14, 1978 was affirmed finally maintaining the order of eviction passed against him on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellant is a tenant under the respondent in a portion of property at D-32, South Extension Part Ii, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 besides electricity and ter charges. The respondent served a notice dated November 27, 1972, demanding arrears of rent from September 1. 1972, and not getting the response, instituted eviction application on March 13, 1973, giving rise to the present appeal, for eviction of the appellant on various ground s including the ground of non-payment of rent specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 o...
Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT140(Del)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the rejection of the refund application filed by the petitioner on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 2. The petitioner is one of the leading manufacturers of cigarettes. The cigarettes are marketed by the petitioner through M/s. India Tobacco Company Ltd. as well as through other dealers. 3. For the period 1st September, 1970 to 22nd February, 1972 excise duty was paid on the basis that the wholesale price, which was relevant for the purpose of calculating the excise duty payable under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was the price which was being charged by the dealers of the petitioner. In fact excise duty was livable only with reference to the wholesale market price which was charged by the petitioner from the main dealers. This was so held by the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Roy and another v. Voltas Ltd., : 1973ECR60(SC) . 4. The Supreme Court delivered the judgment in the Voltas case on 1st December,...
Shakti Sugars Limited Vs. Union of India and State Trading Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi212; ILR1980Delhi1293
G.R. Luthra J.(1) The present application of Union M India, defendant No. 1 is to the effect that the plaint of the suit filed by M/s. Shakti Sugars Ltd. does not disclose any cause of action against the former and that thereforee the suit against the former should be dismissed with costs. (2) For the purpose of deciding this application obviously only allegations of the plaintiff as contained in the plaint are to be and arc being considered. Those allegations briefly are as follows : (3) Plaintiff is a public limited company incorporared under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at 73-A Race Course Road, Coimbatore. It is carrying on business, infer alia, of manufacture of white crystal sugar at its factory at Appakkudal Bhavani Taluk, District Periyar, Tamil Nadu. (4) The State Trading Corporation of India, defendant No. 2. who is canalising export of sugar out of India under the Imports and Exports ( (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as...
Indian Plastics and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT108(Del)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the levy of excise duty on the aqueous solution of phenolic resin (hereinafter referred to as the solution) which is manufactured by the petitioner. 2. Item No. 15-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provides for levy of excise duty on artificial and synthetic resin. The relevant portion of the said entry reads as under :- 'Artificial or synthetic resin and plastic materials and articles thereof. - (1) Artificial or Synthetic resin and plastic materials in any form, whether solid, liquid or pasty or as a powder, granules or flakes, or in the form of moulding powders, the following namely :- (i) Condensation, Poly-condensation and Poly-addition products, whether or not modified or polymerised including phenoplasts, Aminoplasts, Alkyds, Polvufethane, Polyally Esters and others Unsaturated Polyesters.' On 23rd September, 1965 a notification was issued under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules. By the said notificatio...
T.B. Association, Lala Ram Swarup Hospital, T.B. Centre Vs. Reg. Prov. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1980
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR179]; 1981RLR92
Avadh Behari, J.(1) Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. These three writ petitions raise a common question of law. They were heard together. This judgment will govern them all. (2) T.B. Association of India is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It was founded in 1939 with the object of 'prevention, control, treatment and relief of tublerculosis.' They have also State Associations throughout India having similar objects. The Association has started a hospital known as Lala Ram Swarup T.B. Hospital at Mehrauli. They have also a T.B. Centre at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. (3) T. B. Association is petitioner in C.W. No. 1356 of 1978. Lala Ram Swarup T.B. Hospital is petitioner in C.W. No. '217 of 1978. T.B. Centre is petitioner in C.W. No. 1218 of 1978. We will take these three cases separately. (4) C.W. No 1356 of 1978. T.B. Association has a Provident Fund Scheme which is governed by the Provident Fund Act 1925 (Act of 25). In the Schedule to that Act the name of T.B. Asso...
Mohini Syal Vs. Kushal Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT497; 1980(1)DRJ158
ORDER21 rule 16, Civil Procedure Code merely permits the executing court to allow the assignee to execute the decree. But if the assignee does not come forward, the executing court can by no stretch of imagination prevent the decree-holder from executing his decree. That is the right of the every decree-holder. Thus Order 21, rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, will not at all be attracted to such a situation and although the respondent might have declared that he had assigned the right under the decree in favor of the defense Department, he cannot be prevented from executing the decree. If the assignment be valid the execution will be for the benefit of the respondent himself'.(8) I am thus of the considered opinion that the petitioner has locus standi to continue the execution proceedings inpursuance of the permission granted under Section 21 of the Act. In all the cited cases the decree-holder took proceedings after assignment. In the case before me execution proceedings were initiated o...
Hindustan Dewidat Tools Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT1(Del)
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the authority under the Customs Act, 1962 dismissing the application of the petitioner for refund of duty on three cases of Broaches Ex. SS. Tannenfels, B/E cash No. 2697/13/7/66 R.A. dated December 16, 1966. 2. The petitioner imported three cases of broaches from West Germany vide invoice No. - A-411 30/4 dated April 13, 1966, Bill of Entry Cash No. 2697/13/7/66 dated December 16, 1966. The said three cases arrived at the Bombay Docks by Vessel named S.S. Tannenfels on May 7, 1966 and custom duty had been assessed under ICT No. 71(a) at the rate of 60% + 10% totalling Rs. 30,586.60 and the said duty was duly paid. 3. It appears that when the clearing agents of the petitioner went to take delivery, the three cases were found to be missing. The petitioner by letter dated June 15, 1966 reported to the Enquiry Officer, Allexandra Docks, Bombay that the said ...
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-1980
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi169
Prakash Narain, A.C.J.(1) The only question which arises for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the construction to be placed on a proviso contained in a notification issued by the Central Government bearing No. 13/65 of February 13, 1965 under the power conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This notification was, 'admittedly, issued with a view to give incentive to the production of sugar in our country. The notification was issued exempting sugar in column 2 of the table therein falling under sub-item (1) of the first Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 from certain duty livable thereon as was in excess of the duty specified in column 3 of the said table. In plain language, for production of sugar over and above a certain quantity the manufacturer was entitled to certain rebate. (2) The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its business is to manu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »