Delhi Court February 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 1 of about 50 results (0.021 seconds)Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Smt. Sush ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi2
1. The only question that has been raised in this appeal from the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dated April 25, 1979, is about the award of interest. The husband of respondent No. 1 died in a motor accident in 1971. She and her children brought an application on February 7, 1972, under s. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act), against Jupiter General Insurance Co. After merger the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. appeared on the scene. At first there was some difficulty in knowing about the name of the owner of the offending vehicle and the number of the insurance policy. On October 10, 1973, the policy was shown to the insurance company. Thereafter, the trial proceeded. The company contested the claim. On April 25, 1979, the Tribunal made an award of Rs. 48,000 on account of compensation. The company was granted two months' time to deposit the amount in the Tribunal failing which the claimants were to be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum f...
Tag this Judgment!National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Metal Products of India ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT227; 1980RLR676
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is plaintiff's appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge by which he allowed the respondent-defendant's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and stayed the suit filed by the appellant. (2) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,37,029.25 on account of arrears of Installment of three hire-purchase agreements enteredinto between the appellant and the respondent. It is common case that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, namely, Clause 16 which provides that any dispute or difference between the parties will be referable to the arbitration of two arbitrators one to be nominated by each party and in case of difference of opinion between them by Umpire selected by them. The suit was filed on 23rd October, 1971. The respondent filed an application under Section 34 seeking stay of the suit because of the arbitration clause. The learned Judge has allowed the application and that is why the plaintiff has...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmohan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980CriLJ742; 17(1980)DLT438
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present revision petition Nos. 53, 54, and 52 filed by Sarvshri Sanjay Gandhi, Jagmohan, and Ranbir Singh respectively under Sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seek to invoke the revisional and inherent powers for quashing and order dated 11th February 1980 of Shri K.P.Verma, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi allowing under Section 473 of the Code, launching of prosecution against the petitioners beyond and after the expiry of period of limitation as prescribed by Section 468 of the Code. As all the petitions are in respect of the same order they are being decided together by means of one judgment which is being written in Revision Petition No. 54 of 1980 tiled Shri Jagmohan.(2) On 28th May 1977, Government of India acting under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiries Act, appointed a commission of inquiry with Mr. Justice J.G. Shah, retired Chief Justice of India as the Chairman. That Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Anand Chela Vs. Swami Divyanand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1036; 17(1980)DLT492; 1980RLR265
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The applicant herein, Ganesha Nand Chela, was summoned by Mr. S. M. Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, by his order dated May 29, 1976, for an offence under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, on a complaint filed by Swami Divyanand (respondent herein). (2) The complainant's case was that he was a Sanyasi and disciple of Swami Purna Nand Jt Maharaj. His Guru owned an Ashram known as Sri Krishna Ashram in Delhi. and three other Ashrams situate in Haridwar, Ahmedabad etc. According to the complainant, the accused Ganesha Nand had also been a chela (disciple) of his Guru but he had been removed from the chelaship in the year 1974. It was alleged that With a view to grab the property of the Guru, the accused had made take and malicious accusations against the said Guru and his Dharam, and also against one Shrimati Pritma Devi. The gravamen of the allegations are contained in paragraph 4 of the complaint which reads asunder : '4.That in order to defame the Guru and ...
Tag this Judgment!Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT539a; 1980CENCUS489D; 1980(6)ELT679(Del); ILR1980Delhi1173
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether paper maker's felts (woollen and cotton) which is manufactured by the petitioner can be regarded as cotton fabrics of woollen fabrics under Entry No. 19 and 21 respectively in the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (2) The petitioner in the year 1970 set-up a plant for the manufacture of paper maker's felts, both cotton and woollen. It is an admitted case that these felts are manufactured by the petitioner by the process of weaving of cotton and synthetic yam, in the case of manufactured of cotton dryer felts; and by weaving wool fibre or wool fibre mixed with varying percentage of synthetic fibre in the case of the manufacture of woollen felts. According to the petitioner these felts which are manufactured by it are used only for industrial purposes. (3) With regard to cotton felts the petitioner on or about 17th November, 1970 made an application to the Superin...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. the Children Book Trust
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT332; 1980RLR750
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In this Letters Patent Appeal the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is challenging the correctness of the judgment of the single Judge of this Court who had partly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and had held that, part of the property belonging to the respondent was exempt from leavy of general tax.(2) Property known as Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. New Delhi is owned by the respondent Trust. The said Trust is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is a non-profit making body and does not pay any dividend or bonus to its members. The objects for which the Trust was established. amongst others, are as follows: '1.To undertake the work of printers, publishers, engrave books and prints sellers, book binders and art journalists in any of their branches ; 2.To hold or take part in competitions of any description authorised by law which, may be calculated to promote the education art, and culture of the people of India...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sushila JaIn ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas438(Delhi); ILR1980Delhi1057
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The only question that has been raised in this appeal from the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated April 25, 1979 is about the award of interest. The husband of respondent No. 1 died in a motor accident in 1971. She and her children brought an application on February 7, 1972 under s- 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act) against Jupitar General Insurance Company. After merger the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company appeared on the scene. At first there was some difficulty in knowing about the name of the owner of the offending vehicle and the number of the insurance policy. On October 10, 1973 the policy was shown to the insurance company. Thereafter the trial proceeded. The company contested the claim. On April 25, 1979 the tribunal made an award of Rs. 48,000.00 on account of compensation. The company was granted two months' time to deposit the amount in the tribunal failing which the claimants were to be entitled to interes...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Dayal and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi528
Harish Chandra, J. (1) In this petition Sarvshri Prabhu Dayal, Jai Narain, Rohtas Singh and Mahavir Singh, employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, have challenged the orders dated 24th June, 1972 by which they were suspended from service and notices dated 22nd June, 1974. instituting a domestic enquiry against H them. (2) The relevant facts are that the petitioners were working at the S. P. Mukherjee Marg Fire Station of the Delhi Fire Service. On an allegation that they had assaulted the Station Officer of the Fire Station. The petitioners were charge-sheeted and the enquiry was entrusted to the Director of Enquiries. The said Director found that the charges leveled were established and based on this finding the management dismissed the petitioners from service. The petitioners challenged the dismissal and an industrial dispute relating to the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. In this award, the Labour Court held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kumar Vs. R.C. Dhingra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980RLR472
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order of Shri J. D. Kapoor, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi who allowed the respondent's application under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act') and directed the petitioner to vacate the suit premises within six months from the date of the order. (2) The respondent/landlord filed an application under section 14(l)(e) of the said Act contending that he has a large family and is in occupation of only three rooms in the premises known as M-63, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. It was averred that he bona fide required the premises in the occupation of the petitioner-tenant for his own use. (3) The petitioner applied and obtained leave to defend as provided by section 25B of the said Act. The case of the petitioner was that the premises were residential-cum- non-residential and had been let out as such and thereforee eviction could not be ordered under the provisions of section 14(l...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1980]126ITR532(Delhi)
S. RANGANATHAN J. - These four references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the request of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed'). They relate to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70. The previous years relevant for these assessment years were the financial years which ended on March 31, 1966, March 31, 1967, March 31, 1968, respectively.The questions which have been referred for decision of this court are : ITR 111 to 113/72 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of M/s. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., for the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 can be said to be income derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes ?''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., for the assessment year 1969-70 can be said to be income derived from property hel...
Tag this Judgment!