Delhi Court April 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.
Haryana Breweries Ltd. Vs. Aluminium Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi311; 18(1980)DLT122
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) This is a defendant's appeal against the order of Sultan Singh, J. by which he refused leave to defend the suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendant No. 1 appellant and defendant No. 2 (who is respondent No. 2 in the appeal) and thereafter passed a decree for Rs. 50,247-73 against the appellant and respondent No. 2.(2) It is unfortunate that when it comes to setting the matters in a spirit of mutual accomodtion the public sector and the Government undertakings seem to behave in as small and petty a manner as unfortunately the individuals sometimes do. The allegation in the plaint is that the respondent No. I which is being managed by West Bengal government had supplied certain goods to the appellant. The goods were negotiated by respondent No. 2 on behalf of the appellant. The goods supplied were worth over 6 lakhs, and according to the plaintiff the balance amount of over Rs. 50,000.00 has not been paid. Though at one stage in 1976, it ...
Prem Nath Motors Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT111; [1980(41)FLR338]
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 4th November, 1970 passed in G. W. 647-Dofl966 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 15th April 1966 passed by Shri Anand Narain Kaul, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi (respondent No. 1) whereby the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal had dismissed an application filed by the appellants under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'' for approval of anorderofdismissal passed by the Management of the appellants against John Nicholson (respondent No. 2) in the present appeal.(2) It appears that the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act for approval of action of dismissal taken by the Management of the appeal- lants against respondent No. 2 was filed before respondent No. 1 on 24.11.1964 in view of the pendency of Industr...
Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. National Council of Educational Research
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1010
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) By this writ petition, the petitioner, Chander Mohan Khanna, prays for the quashing of an order of termination of his services passed by the second respondent viz. the Secretary of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) which is the first respondent in the writ petition. On behalf of the first and second respondents, a preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of this writ petition. The contention is that the first respondent is only a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act and governed by its own memorandum of association and the rules framed there under and is thereforee not amendable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, not being the State or other authority to whom writs, or directions or orders in the nature of writs could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. After hearing both the counsel we have come to the conclusion that this preliminary objection has to be upheld. We, ...
Kashmere Gate Charitable Trust Vs. M.G. Shahni and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi467; 1980RLR580
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) In this appeal two powerful litigants are locked in battle. One is a trust and the other a company. The appellant landlord is Kashmere Gate Charitable Trust. Shri K.S. Bhatnagar is one of the trustees of the trust and its secretary. The constesting respondent on the other other side is M/s. M.G Shahni & Co. (P) Limited. They have a large number of godowns at different places at Delhi and the disputed premises are one such godown (No.1350) The battle is over the .possession of this godown in a building purchased by the trust some time in 1967- in Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Admittedly the company is a subtenant of the godown. (2) On, 8.6.1972 the landlord, Kashmere Gate Charitable Trust, filed an application for ejectment against the tenant, Shri Man-other Lal Vacher, an advocate of Delhi, A number of grounds of ejectment were taken They were all abandoned except one under s 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). Ejectment of the tenant was sought on the...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Little theatre Group and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1037
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) How is the annual letting value to be determined in' the case of property constructed on a leasehold land for the purpose of arriving at the amount of house tax to be paid under section 3 (1) (b) of the Punjab Municipal Act is the question involved in this and connected writ petitions. (2) A plot of land measuring O.5 acre or thereabout situate at Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi by lease-deed dated 21st April, 1972 was 1et out to respondent No. 1 in perpetuity from 6th February, 1962. The consideration in terms of premium which was paid was of Rs. 18,000 'or acquiring the said rights. In addition the respondent in terms of the lease-deed was required to pay yearly rent of Rs. 900 in advance which rent is subject to revision in terms of the said lease after the expiry of every thirty years. It appears that this land has been given to the respondent at a concessional rate and the land user is described in the lease-deed. The purpose for which the land can be used is that of...
New Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Hardev Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi224
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) Hardev Singh son of Gulab Singh, respondent No. 1, was tried by Shri R. D. AggarwaL Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on a complaint filed by the petitioner under section 7 read with sections 16 and 17 of the Pre'vention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the allegation that the sample of Atta sold by him as vendor on behalf of M!s. Punjabi Hotel respondent No. 3, to Food Inspector, M. S. Chadha, on 5th November. 1974, was found to be adulteries due to presence of insect infestation. Respondent No. 2, Ranjit Singh, was imp leaded as an accused alleging that he was the working partner of M/s. Punjabi Hotel, respondent No. 3, supervising and managing the day-to-day working of the Hotel. As per allegations in the complaint, the Atta was exposed/meant for preparation of Chapatis being sold and intended for human consumption at the premises of respondent No. 3. The trial Court on evaluation of evidence, holding that the Atta was declared a...
Deputy General Manager Phones, Delhi Telephone District, New Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi511; 1981LabIC462; 1981(1)SLJ487(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, J.(1) In this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent we are concerned with two principal points which arise for decision. The first is the construction to be put on certain provisions of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Stenographers) Recruitment Rules, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, which were promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by a notification dated November 13, 1961. The second point which arises in the case is whether the. rules of natural justice are attracted where an appointment made under the rules is later, nullified on the ground of there being a mistake committed by somebody in permitting an employee of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department to sit for a competitive examination in a recruitment for certain posts done under the rules.(2) The respondent was appointed a Time Scale Clerk in the office of the Controller of Telegraphy Stores (hereinafter referred to as the C.T.S.),Jabalpur on February 26...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1980
Reported in: [1980]125ITR96(Delhi)
1. These three references at the instance of the assessed pertain to the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The common question of law referred by the Tribunal for our opinion is: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payments of Rs. 5,67,000 and Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 5,000 are permissible deductions under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-61 and 1961-62 ?' 2. The assessed-company runs a manufacturing unit. During the assessment year 1958-59, it paid a sum of Rs. 5,67,000 to the Indian National Congress. It also made payments to the Indian National Congress Rs. 5,000 in each of the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. 3. The assessed claimed these amounts as permissible deductions under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The assessed contended before the ITO that the donation to the Indian National Congress was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. The ITO d...
Jagdish Chand Vs. Bhim Sam Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi283; 1980RLR597
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The Revision petition under consideration was instituted by Shri Jagdish Chand u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge an order of rateable distribution. There were three separate decrees passed against one Bhim Sain in suits decided by three different Subordinate Judges, all in Delhi. The details of those decrees is set out at length in the order sought to be challenged (passed by Shri G.P. Tharaja, sub Judge 1st class). It is only necessary to refer to the facts relevant to this petition which are : (2) In the decree obtained by Jagdish Chand against the said Bhim Sain a house belonging to the judgment debtor was sold by the Court of Shri H.S. Bakshi and a sum of Rs. l2,000.00 was received. Out of this, one quarter of the consideration was recieved on 15.1.66 and the balance on 20.1.66. The sale was confirmed on 26.4 67 and a sale certificate issued. The two other decree-holders Ram Narain and Shiv Nath had their execution applications pending before som...
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Del)143; ILR1980Delhi1003
Leila Seth, J. (1) These three references at the instance of the assessce, pertain to the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-60 and 1961-62. The common question of law, referred by the Tribunal for our opinion, is : 'WHETHERon the facts and in the eimcumstances of the case. the payments of Rs. 5,67,000. Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 5,000 are permissible deductions under Section 10(2)(xv)of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-61 and 1961-62?'(2) The assessed-company runs a manufacturing unit. During the assessment, year 1958-59. it paid a sum of Rs. 5,67,000 to the Indian National Congress. It also made payments to the Indian National Congress of Rs, 5000 in each of the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. (3) The asscssee claimed these amounts as permissible deductions under Section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 1922. The asscssee contended before the Income-tax Officer that the donation to the Indian National Congress was incurred wholly and exclusively...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »