Delhi Court May 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 4 of about 43 results (0.021 seconds)Parmeshwari Dass Khanna Vs. Bhola Nath Parihar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi77; 18(1980)DLT372
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this regular second appeal succinctly are that the appellant has been in occupation of Shop No. VIII/ 328, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, as a tenant under the respondent on a monthly rent of-Rs. 18.60 since early fifties. There was a platform in front of the said shop which was 2.2.' higher than the level of foot-path. The level of the floor inside the shop was at the same height from the pavement. However, the appellant lowered the level of the platform by about 'without the consent and permission of the Respondent/landlord. He also replaced the wooden shutter with an iron shutter likewise. He intended even to lower the level of the floor, of the. shop so as to bring it to the level of the platform infront of the shop. This necessitated dismantling of the existing floor and lowering the plinth of the shop by 1. On coming to know of it the respondent-landlord objected to the same but in vain. Finding that the appellant was adament the respondent-landlord ...
Tag this Judgment!Promila Dewan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT435
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In this and the connected writ petitioni, the com- mon question of law which arises is to how the annual letting value of the property is to be determined for the purpose of arriving at the amount of house-tax to be paid under Section 3(l)(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 191 I in the case of houses situated under the jurisdiction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee and under Section 116 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act. (2) The Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur v. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1980 (1) R.G.J. 468 (S.G.)== 17(1980) D.L.T. 88 (SC), has held that the annual letting value of the property is to be determined with reference to the standard rent of the property which can be fixed under Section 6 or Section 9, as the case may be, of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed and applied by us in another case, being (N. D. M. 0. v. Little Theatre Group), G.W. 219 of 1980, decided on 9-4-1...
Tag this Judgment!Phelps and Co. Vs. Shalimar Paints, New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980RLR646
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) This is a revision directed against the grant of an interim injunction whereby the petitioner before this Court and the New Delhi Municipal Committee have been restrained from interfering with the repairs being carried out by M/s. Shalimar Paints Ltd , respondent No. 1 in the premises situated on the first floor of property No. 9-A, Connaught Place, New Delhi. It appears that the tenancy premises were sought to be repaired by the plaintiff, i.e., the tenant because the roof had deteriorated. The plaintiff had got the roof inspected by an architect, who suggested that the only method of repair was to get the roof renewed. The tenant asked the landlord M/s. Phelps & Co Ltd., to get the suit property repaired in the suggested manner, but the landlord wanted the tenant to be evicted before these repairs could be carried out, (2) The tenant then instituted the suit for an injunction and prayed for an ad-interim injunction permitting the work of repairs to be carried on. T...
Tag this Judgment!S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi263
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) On 27th February, 1980 the State Government acting under section 238(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act. 1911, as applied to Delhi, passed the following order superseding the New Delhi Municipal Committee : 'NO.F. 4(68)/77-LSG: Whereas the New Delhi Municipal Committee was constituted vide this Administration's notification of even number dated the 29th September, 1979 and the 25th February, 1980;And Whereas the said Committee has been incompetent to perform and has made persistent defaults in the performance of, the duties 'imposed on it under the law and has abused its powers, resulting into the wastage of Municipal Funds, on many occasions, some of which may be stated as under : (i) The construction of city centres contract was originally awarded to M/s. Mohinder Singh & Co.. at the cost of Rs. 1,80,48,460.00 for completion within a period of 30 months. The clause of mobilisation advance included in the tender submitted by the above party was written after negoti...
Tag this Judgment!Gurbux Singh Vs. Kishan Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT36
Harish Chandra, J.1. The petitioner is a landlord who filed an eviction petition against the respondents on 7th April, 1979 on the ground covered by clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The need was based on the forthcoming retirement of the petitioner on 31st August, 1980. The respondents applied for leave and by an order dated 13th September, 1979 were granted leave to contest, on all grounds except those set out in paras 5 and 13 of the application for leave to contest.2. One of the grounds on which the leave to contest was granted was the plea that the eviction petition was premature having been filed without a present cause of action as the date of retirement giving rise to the need of the premises was 31st August, 1980, more than one year after the filing of the petition.3. After the grant of leave to contest, on this among grounds, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to consider the ground of prematurely of the eviction application, there and then and by ...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Singh Gupta Vs. Prem Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi305; 18(1980)DLT84; 1980(1)DRJ64; 1980RLR413
Avadh Bihari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is an appeal from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 27th September, 1979.(2) The appellant Sher Singh Gupta was a tenant of the ground floor of house No. 11311/1 situated on plot No. 23, Block No. 14-A, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He took these premises on rent on 7th September, 1949 from Roshan Lal. Roshan Lal was at that time managing this property. On Bhagwat Sarup claimed that he was the owner of the property. Between Roshan Lal and Bhagwat Sarup litigation ensued. Finally the High Court held that Bhagwat Sarup was the owner. The appeal of Roshan Lal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. thereforee, the appellant became the tenant of Bhagwat Sarup.(3) Bhagwat Sarup launched ejectment proceedings against the tenant under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The subordinate judge in the suit for ejectment made an order of eviction. On appeal the Additional District Judge set aside the order of eviction. But the tenant was not satisf...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dass Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1033; 18(1980)DLT145
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By his judgment passed on January 31, 1977. Shri B.B. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge Delhi, has convicted Bhagwan Dass, 0m Parkash and Beerum, appellants, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 102 125 and 246 of 1977, respectively, for an offence under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for having murdered 0m Parkash on August 4, 1976, and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life.(2) As the facts and the questions of law involved are the same, the above three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. (3) About a month and a half prior to the incident, the deceased, 0m Parkash son of Nimbu Ram, had been convicted for an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, for having injured two of the appellants, namely, Bhagwan Dass and 0m Parkash, who are brothers, by the Court of Session. During the pendency of his appeal challenging his conviction and sentence in that case, he was bailed out by this Court. According to th...
Tag this Judgment!Tejpal Singh Vs. Hardit Singh, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT295
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This is an appeal under section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, read with Rule 103 of Order 21 and section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code), as amended in 1976. It is against the order of a learned single Judge passed on the original side in execution proceedings. The decree- holder respondent sought to execute the decree in execution case No. 40 of 1979. The decree was based on a compromise between the decree-holder, Hardit Singh, and the judgment-debtor, Daljeet Singh. It provided for the judgment-debtor handing over possession of the premises to the decree-holder. When the decree-holder sought to obtain possession of the premises by way of executing the decree, he was obstructed by Tej Pal Singh, the present appellant who came into the possession of the premises as a result of an agreement between him and the judgment-debtor after the decree against the judgment- debtor was passed. (2) The decree-holder made an application complaining of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Saran and Sons (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle-iv, ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]130ITR212(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. The petitioner is an HUF represented by the karta, R. B. Ganga Saran. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of a notice issued by the 1st respondent on the 17th February, 1975, under s. 147 read with s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. The original assessment of the family for the assessment year 1970-71, was completed by the 1st respondent on the 1st September, 1971. One of the items of income that had to be considered for the above assessment year was the capital gain derived by the assessed on the sale of a house property bearing No. 11, Keeling Road, New Delhi, on 28th July, 1969. The assessed filed a copy of the sale deed before the ITO. According to the deed, the consideration for which the property was sold was Rs. 9,50,000. After deducting the cost price of the house which had been purchased by the assessed on 4th January, 1956, and the cost of additions and improvements as well as brokerage, a capital gain of Rs. 7,50,709 was arrived...
Tag this Judgment!Henrys Clerks Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi952
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) On a petition moved by M/s. Henry S. Clerk & Co., under section 14 of the Arbitration Act:, the award delivered on 6-3-1976, by Shri N. S. Mehta wbb acted as the sole no arbitrator between the petitioner and the Director General of Supplies & Disposals, Government of India, v/as filed in Court,. Notices of the same were issued to the petitioner and the Union of India through the said Director General of Supplies & Disposals. Objections were thereafter filed under sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act by the petitioner. These were controverter by the respondent Union of India.(2) 'THE reference arose out of a contract dated 19-6-1971, under which the petitioner had agreed to supply cough tablets of the value of ' Rs. 5,22,660 to the respondent. There, however,, subsequently arose differences between the parties under that contract, and as the same contained an arbitration clause, the disputes were referred to the arbitration of Shri N. S. Mehta.(3) The award ...
Tag this Judgment!