Delhi Court March 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.
Sumitra Baluja Vs. Bharat Chemical Industries and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas561(Delhi)
Khanna, J.1. This suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,05,000, has been brought by Smt. Sumitra Baluja with averments that her late husband, Shri K. L. Baluja, advanced a loan of Rs. 56,000 to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on November 25, 1969. The same was refundable on demand with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 then, for themselves and as partners of their firm, defendant No. 1, executed a pronote and a receipt on the same date to that effect. It was also mentioned that the amount would be paid not later than November 25, 1970. Thereafter, on the same day, these defendants deposited with Mr. Baluja the title deeds of their property bearing No. 369, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, and of a bungalow plot situated at College Road, Ludhiana. The former was stated to be of the value of rupees two lakhs and the other Rs. 50,000. However, in spite of the deposit of these title deeds, it is claimed that the transaction was a pure and simple loan and that their deposit was as ...
Gopal Sisodia Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi299
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) Caveat has been entered by the respondents represented by Mr. B. N. Lokur with Mr. M. Chandrasekharan.(2) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks theissue of a writ or direction restraining the Union of India and theLieutenant Governor of Delhi from dissolving the Metropolitan Council, which has been constituted under the Delhi Administration Act,1966. Section 11 of the said Act, which gives this power, is asfollows : '(1)The Administrator shall, from time to time, summon, theMetropolitan Council to meet at such time and placeas he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between.its last sitting in one session and the date appointed forits first sitting in the next session. (2)The Admimstratoi- may, from lime to time, (a) prorogue the Metropolitan Council ;(b) with the approval of the President, dissolve the Metropolitan Council.'(3) The main grounds stated in the petition and also orally byMr. Kapur for obtaining the relief prayed for a...
Kasturi Lal Harkesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi308
Harish Chandra, J.(1) The petitioners in these petitions and in several others in which rule nisi has not been issued are recognised/ licensed sugar dealers who have challenged the viras and validity of an order issued on 17th December, 1979 and called the Sugar (Retention and Sale by Recognised Dealers) Order, 1979. The impugned order comes in the series of orders issued with a view to ensure availability of sugar at fair prices and the history of such orders may briefly be recalled. (2) In Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills etc. v. Union of India, : [1973]2SCR860 , the Supreme Court noted that so far as sugar is concerned, statutory control over it was first imposed in 1942 under the Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order, 1942. The Sugar Controller there under regulated production, distribution and prices of sugar. From May 1, 1942 no sugar factory was permitted to effect sales except to authorised persons. This position continued until December 8, 1947, when sugar was decontrolled. In...
Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. Vs. th ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1980
Reported in: [1981(42)FLR315]; ILR1980Delhi841; (1981)IILLJ86Del
Prakash Narain, J. (1) The question which arises for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether an ad hoc payment made to employees by an employer in pursuance of a settlement arrived at between the employer and the union representing the employees is 'basic wages' within the meaning and for the purposes of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Funds Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act. (2) The facts leading to the filing of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are these. The petitioner is an employer and its employees, as represented by the Petroleum Workers Union, respondent No. 2, are covered by the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 1. is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi, and the Union of India is respondent No. 3. Disputes were raised by respondent No. 2, which were referred for conciliation to the Conciliation Officer, Delhi, as contemplated by the Industrial Disputes Act, 19...
Prem Dutt Gupta Vs. Dhan Devi, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi486
M.I. Jain, J.(1) Two constructions stand on a plot in Green Park, New Delhi which are marked as property No. F-49 and F-49-A. F.49A was owned by Smt. Dhan Devi and F-49 was owned by defendant Prem Dutt Gupta. There was a passage and a stair-case leading to the first floor. Smt. Dhan Devi brought a suit that Prem Dutt Gupta raised construction in the common passage by which he left 21/2 ft. passage for the plaintiff and completely blocked the stair-case. She prayed for removed of the wall constructed in the passage and of the obstruction in the stair-case. Arguments were heard on September 16, 1976. Smt. Dhan Devi died on November 27, 1976. The court inspected the site on December 25, 1976. Arguments were again heard on January 3, 1977 and the suit was decided on January 4, 1977. The decree was drawn in the name of Smt. Dhan Devi without mentioning that she was dead. (2) The defendant went in appeal in which the respondent was described as Dhan Devi deceased through her husband Shri B. ...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Prakash Warehouse and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1980
Reported in: [1981]51CompCas609(Delhi); ILR1980Delhi962
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This suit brought by the Bank of Baroda against the five defendants for the recovery of Rs. 4,17,729.85 p., has arisen in the following circumstances : (2) A current account was got opened by defedant No. 1 firm, of which defendants No. 2 to 4 are partners, with the plaintiff on 8-4-1975. Defendant No, 5 had then introduced defendants No. 2 to 4 to the plaintiff. On the basis of this account, the plaintiff is- seeking a decree of Rs. 3.15,722.04 p. against defedant No. 1 and its partners. This large liability has resulted as the defendant-firm had been overdrawing.(3) Another account known as cash-credit account, was got opened by defendant No. 1 with the plaintiff on 22-4-1975. This had drawal facility of Rs. 25,000.00 . Defendant No. 5 had stood as guarantor for this account and had executed a document in this direction on 19th April, 1975. On the basis of this account the plaintiff claims a decree for Rs. 40,133.51 p. against all the defendants including defendant...
Prithvi Raj Vs. Nirmal Multani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1980
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT552; 1980RLR343
A.B. Rohatgi, J. (1) This is an appeal from the order of the rent control tribunal dated 2/11/1979. (2) The appellant Prithvi Raj is a tenant on the ground floor of house No. 66 Babar Road, New Delhi. He carries on business of sale of books under the name and style of Hind Book House. On 15/04/1968 he took the premises on rent from the landlady, Nirmal Multani, the respondent. A lease deed was executed. The rate of rent was agreed atRs.750.00per month. The tenant paid advance rent of 6' months. In terms of the lease deed the premises let to the tenant consisted of the ground floor hall. In additional to this he was given the right to keep a shop window 6 x 9 feet in the front verandah for display of books. He was also allowed to put a sign board on the common wall. But it was expressly provided in the lease that front room, verandah, bath room and front court yard shall not form part of the demised premises. The tenant however was given the right of passage from the front and use of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Mahabir Prashad and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)161; ILR1980Delhi1147
1. Sometimes, in income-tax matters, as in other branches of law, a considerable amount of judicial time is consumed in resolving a purely procedural wrangle. Thus, under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as well as its successor Act of 1961, the question as to how far an order charging interest is appealable to the AAC and then to the Appellate Tribunal has engaged considerable attention of the courts and an attempt at legislative clarification has really not solved the problem. Before proceeding to set out how the difficulty arises, the facts of the present reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, may be briefly stated. 2. For the assessment year 1962-63, the respondent - assessed, M/s. Mahabir Parshad & Sons, a registered firm, had to file its return of income within the time prescribed under s. 139(1), i. e., June 30, 1962. The return was not filed on that date. The assessed applied for extension of time on November 30, 1962, February 19, 1963, and September 30, 1963 the applicati...
Appollo Tyres Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS363D; 1980(6)ELT428(Del)
D.R. Khanna, J.1. Appollo Tyres Limited, petitioner, No. 1, is manufacturing automobile tyres and tubes as its factory located in Trichur, Kerala. The other two petitioners are the Bharat Steel Tubes Limited and Shri Raunaq Singh who are stated to be its share-holders. Shri Raunaq Singh, besides is the Chairman and Managing Director of petitioner No. 1. 2. The case of these petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that though the automobile tyres and tubes industry in India was established several decades ago, there was need to encourage it further in order to meet the growing demands and the economy of the country. As such the Government of India, with a view to developed digamous production and eliminate bottle-necks and difficulties, made a reference to the Bureau of Industrial Costs and Prices to go into the entire economics of the growth of automobile tyres and tubes industry an dto suggest measures calculated to further its growth. A detaile...
R.M. Joshi and Others Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: [1981(42)FLR210]; ILR1980Delhi291; (1982)ILLJ77Del
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench, in view of apparent lack of agreement among certain decisions of this Court, is whether the 'Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations 1948' are statutory in character or not. 2. The background of the reference is that certain direct recruits in Grade A in the service of the Reserve Bank have filed Writ Petitions Nos. 876 and 1029 of 1974 for enforcing against the Reserve Bank and the promotees certain alleged rights based on the right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution and by the Staff Regulations. The preliminary objection taken by the Bank is that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the obligations alleged to be binding on the Bank and sought to be enforced by the writ petition are purely contractual in nature. The Staff Regulations framed administratively by the Bank have at their end Form A, which is a declaration to be bound by the Staff Regulations in the following words : 'I hereby declare that I hav...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »