Delhi Court December 1980 Judgments
Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT284(Del); ILR1981Delhi795
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) Jay Engineering Works Limited (petitioner No. 1) is a limited company having its registered office at Delhi. It owns a unit in Agra known as Agra Engineering Industries where it manufactures electric fans and regulators. According to the petitioner it is also manufacturing regulators for the fans at its Agra unit but it is stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the regulators are not manufactured by the petitioner but that the petitioner gets them manufactured from a unit named and styled as Bharat Kumar Bhargava by supplying them requisite raw-material. The electric fans and regulators are sold by the petitioner company to dealers appointed by it and also directly to customers from its own shops in the State of West Bengal and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. In respect of the rest of the country, however, about 90 per cent of its sales are effected to Usha Sales Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Usha') and to some extent directly to bulk institutio...
Tag this Judgment!Annie BenjamIn Vs. BanjamIn Mathew
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT239; 1981RLR255
S.N. Kumar, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the petition under Section 18 and 22 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1969. The petition was tried and heard on the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent is impatent, as alleged in the petition? If so, to what effect Opa 2. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged in the petition Opa 3. Relief. All the issues were decided against the appellant-wife. Before me the learned counsel for the appellant has pressed issue No. 1 only. (2) The petitioner/appellant is a qualified nurse and the parties were married in Kerala according to Christian Rit as stipulated by the Church of South India on 11th August, 1977. Both the parties were employed in Delhi and they finally separated on 12th December, 1978 in Delhi, where they last resided together. The petitioner in her statement on the point of impotency of the husband stated as under :- 'THE respondent has failed to...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Ohri Vs. Parmod Kanta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT338; 1981RLR346
S.N. Kumar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order dismissing a peti. corporation under the scc. 13(l)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The parties were married on 17 November 1965 and separated within a year of their marriage. The trial court framed the following issues :- 1. Has the respondent deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. 2. Had the petitioner been trying to persuade the respondent to return to his house and, thus there is no unnecessary or improper delay in institution of the proceedings? 3. Relief.(2) The trial court decided issue No. I, against the petitioner-husband and issue No. 2 in his favor. Before me issue No. I was only pressed by both the sides. (3) The trial court found on issue No. I that the respondent-wife was not guilty of committing desertion and it was the petitioner who by the treating the respondent with cruel...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip Chand Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Escorts Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi150; 20(1981)DLT267; 1981RLR308
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge by which he accepted the opposition of the respondents to the registration of the trade-mark 'Escorts' in favor of the appellant which had been allowed by the Assistant Registrar. (2) The respondent company was incorporated under the Companies Act as far back as 1944. It manufactures and sells various agricultural equipment, razor blades, tractors, washing machines, motor cycles, shock absorbers, thermometers and other medical appliances since 1951. In 1961 the respondents sought and obtained registration of its trade-mark of the word 'Escorts' in clause (9) and (II) of schedule 4 of the Rules framed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 (hereinafter to be called the Act). This trade-mark relates to goods amongst others to electric irons, electric kettles, soldering irons and elements for electric irons and kettles. (3) Od 23.3.1963 the appellant sought registration of a trade-mark of the wo...
Tag this Judgment!Wg. C.D.R. Pritam Singh Bhinder and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi892
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) The eleven appellants were joint owners of some land which has been acquired by the Government. They are dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector and the Additional District Judge. thereforee, in this appeal they have sought enhancement of the compensation. (2) The land comprised 25 bighas 8 bids was (5.29 acres) situated in the revenue estate of Yakutpur in the South of Delhi. It lay on the right side of Link Road, after about two-third of the way from Lajpat Nagar to Kalkaji colony. Roughly, the outline of the land formed a rectangle. One of the shorter sides, measuring 354'-6', abutted East on Link Road. On the South and West, the land was bounded by Greater Kailash Colony No. 1. On the North there was Kailash Colony. (3) The notification under section 4 of the land Acquisition 1894 was issued on 4th February 1964. It stated that the land was required for the Planned Development of Delhi. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Kumar Vs. Atam Parkash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT9; ILR1980Delhi409
Vohra, J.(1) In what circumstances irregularity in the publishing and conducting of auction sale vitiates the sale is the short question for determination in this appeal against the order dated July 25, 1978 of M. S. Joshi J whereby sale of property bearing Municipal No. XV4392 (now) 5494 (old) Katra Rai Ji, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi was set aside.(2) Facts relevant for the purpose are that Kaushalya Devi and Keshav Dass purchased the property in question inequal shares for Rs. 30,000 on January 15, 1963 in a negotiated sale. Keshav Dass died on September 12. 1967 leaving behind Atam Parkash. Ved Parkash and Chetan Dass, sons; Sudesh Kumari and Promila Kumari, daughters, and Kaushalya, widow as heirs and legal representatives, On August 23, 1968, Kaushalya Devi instituted suit for partition and obtained preliminary decree on March 21. 1972-. Local Commissioner appointed to suggest mode of partition reported that partition by metes and bounds was not feasible. Accordingly, sale by public au...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Wati and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT196
S.N. Kumar, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge dismissing a petition seeking grant of Letters of Administration under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act with the Will annexed in respect of the estate of Smt. Savitri Devi who died on 29th January 1978. (2) The appellants who were the petitioners submitted before the Distt. judge that they were not the preferential heirs of the deceased hut they claimed .their right only under the Will. This submission has been taken note of by the District judge in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. (3) The learned counsel for the appellants conceded that under section 276 on a petition seeking grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed the District Judge had to decide whether Smt. Savitri Devi duly executed the Will which was alleged to be her last Will that the alleged Will was duly attested in accordance with section 63 of the Succession Act: that the testatrix was in sound disposing mind at the time...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Ram Sakhuja Vs. Ram Parshad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT37; 1981(2)DRJ78
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the 5th Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition of the landlord under Section 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was dismissed. (2) The petitioner is the landlord of the premises No. N-62, Greater Kailash, New Delhi and the respondent is the tenant of the ground floor of the said premises. The petitioner filed a petition for ejectment under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25B of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. It was pleaded that the premises in dispute were let in favor of the respondent in January 1970 for residential purpose only. The present accommodation in possession of the petitioner is insufficient and consists of drawing-cum-dining, two bed rooms, store, kitchen, two toilets and a small varandah on back and front on the first floor besides barasati floor which consists of only one room along with latrine-cum bath. The family of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Swarup Gupta Vs. Vraj Lal Mani Lal and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT162; 1981(2)DRJ37
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is a revision petition on behalf of the landlord under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') directed against the order of the Additional Controller dated 8th January, 1979 dismissing his application under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act for the eviction of the respondents. (2) On 2nd September, 1976 the petitioner filed the eviction application against the respondents with respect to a garage in Property No. 5024, Plot No. 7B, 'Ragunath Sadan', Netaji Subhash Marg. Delhi alleging that the garage in suit was let for parking a car, that the same is bona fide required by him, who is the owner, for parking his Fiat Car No. Dha 475, that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation for parking his car. The petitioner has been living on the first floor of the suit property. The petition was tried under the summary procedure detailed in Chapter Iiia of the Act. The respondents filed an applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Caxton Press (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Del)144; [1981]129ITR462(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The following question was referred to this court under s. 66 (1) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer must be deemed to have exercised his discretion and waived levy of penal interest and that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to revise the order of the Income-tax Office ?' 2. The question referred to us relates to the assessment year 1961-D and a tax demand of Rs. 38,939.60 was raised. The Commissioner, on examining the records of the case, was of the view that as the assessed had omitted to pay advance tax he was liable to pay the same under s. 18A (8) of the Act, and accordingly a notice under s. 33B of the Act was issued on account of the fact that the ITO had omitted to levy penal interest under s. 18A (8). 3. The assessed's claim was that the returns had been filed for the earlier years and if...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »