Delhi Court July 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.
Ganesh Oil Traders Vs. Delhi Terminal Tax Agency and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT276
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In this and the connected petitions the question which arises for consideration is whether an appeal can be filed under Section 169 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the levy of terminal tax. (2) The Petitioner had brought into Delhi Palm Oil. The Terminal Tax was charged at the rate of Rs. 7.00 per. quintal instead of Rs. 2-33 per quintal as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 169 before the Additional District Judge, Delhi challenging the said levy at(3) Chapter Viii of the Municipal Corporation Act refers to levy of taxes. Section 113 contains the power of the Corporation to levy the taxes mentioned therein. Terminal Tax is not one of the taxes which can be levied by the Corporation under Section 113. The levy and collection of terminal tax is provided by Section 178 to 183. Section 178(1) which is the charging section for levy of terminal tax reads as under : 'S. 178(1) :...
Union of India Vs. Seth Sat NaraIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT490
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a letters patent appeal from the order of a learned single judge dated 11th August, 1972. (2) The real question in this appeal is whether 1/12th share of Mst. Badri Jan, a muslim woman, in land was an evacuee property and had been validly declared as such by the authorities under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, as it was subsequently amended by Act 32 of 1954 (the Act). (3) These are the facts. One Dina Nath purchased a garden in village Jhamunma and Sadora Khurd on April 10,1896. He paid Rs.3500.00 as consideration. The vendors were two muslims-Mohd. Zaman Khan and Akram Khan. It was recited in the sale deed that by virtue of a judgment of the district court they, the vendors, had been declared as owners of the property which they were conveying to Dina Nath. From the recitals it appears that some parties had preferred an appeal from the order of the district judge dated 11th December, 1895 which had obviously gone infavor of the ...
Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India Limited Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT22(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the tariff advice No. 35 of 1972 relating to Beta Naphthol issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and further to restrain the respondents from levying any countervailing duty on Beta Naphthol imported by the petitioner under item No. 14D of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with the provisions of Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 58,233.50 paid under protest as countervailing duty. 2. The petitioner is a Company carrying on business, inter alia, as manufacturers of paints, caustic soda, chlorine, plastics, Chemicals including rubber Chemicals at its factory at Rishra in the State of West Bengal. For the manufacture of the said rubber Chemicals the petitioner, inter alia, uses as intermediate raw material known as Beta Naphthol...
A.K. Sen Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi868; [1981]32ITR707(Delhi); 1980RLR563
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The petitioner Shri A. K. Sen is a senior advocate. He was enrolled as an advocate in the Calcutta High Court in Mach 1941. Very soon he was in large practice. Soon he was in the front rank. He had a substantial professional income and was being assessed to income tax. In April 1957 he became the minister of Law in the Central Government. This post he continued to hold till January 1966. . ' (2) When the petitioner joined the Government of India his income dwindled. His main source of income was salary as a minister. For the assessment year 1962-63 he filed his return showing a salary in come of Rs. 30,300, a property income of 2/3rd of Rs. 9000 and interest income of Rs. 2795 and professional and royalty income of Rs. 8005-42. On this return the income tax officer assessed him and determined the tax which the petitioner paid. (3) A notice dated 7th August, 1974 was issued to the petitioner. The income tax officer proposed to reassess the petitioner's income...
Kuldip Kumar Mehta and anr. Vs. Shadi Lal Passi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT259; 1980RLR60
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The appellants were tenants of the respondents- landlords in respect of the premises 1/6, New Double Storey Lajpat Nagar Iv, New Delhi. The landlords let out the premises after obtaining permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act from Shri K. S. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi for a period of two years with effect from 1st March 1976. In the application under Section 21 it was, inter-alia, stated that the landlords did not require the premises for a period of two years. It. was specifically pleaded that 'the petitioner's son Sh. Gurdip Singh Passi is a student and studying in B. A. and the petitioners want to settle him in life and to marry him after studies, and the premises in suit will be required for residence of the petitioners and their son Sh. Gurdip Singh Passi, after the expiry of two years from the date of letting'. The said application was signed by the landlords as well as the petitioners. On 17th February 1976, statement of one o...
Subhash Arya Vs. Charanjit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi23; 18(1980)DLT289
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) The election of Shri Charanjit Singh (the respondent) the returned candidate to the Lok Sabha from South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency at the last general elections to the Parliamentary Constituencies held in January, 1980 has been called in question in this election petition by Shri Subhash Arya alleged to be an elector registered as such at Sr. No. 17, Part No. 387 (15/73) of the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency.. The 'polling for the South Delhi Parliamentary Constituency took place on Jan. 3, 1980 and counting took place on January 6 and January 7, 1980. The result of the election was declared on January 7, 1980 by the Returning Officer and as a result thereof the respondent was declared elected as a Member of the House of People i.e. Lok Sabha on January 7, 1980. This election petition tinder Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act,1951 (hereinafter called the Act) was filed on February 20, 1980 for declaring the election of the respondent v...
Ashok Bhojwani and anr. Vs. in the Matter Of: Estate of Mira Bhojwani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi181; 18(1980)DLT390
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge disposing of an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) for grant of a Probate. (2) One Mrs. Mira Bhojwani died at Delhi on 11.5.1979. She had executed a Will dated 8.3.1978 by which she had appointed her only two children (sons) Ashok Bhojwani and Subhas Bhojwani as the executors of her Will. Amongst the properties bequeathed by her was one bunglow at 7, Nizamuddin East, which she bequeathed in equal shares to her daughters in law, Kusum, also known as Sonu, wife of her son Ashok and Mira, wife of her other son Subhash. She also bequeathed certain other plot and cash to her sons and grand children. Notice was issued to the husband of the deceased. No objection was raised and the learned Judge has directed the issue of Probale with will annexed in favor of the appellants. He however, directed that they must furnish and Administration Bond in the s...
D.N. Vohra Vs. Agya Wanti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT268; 1980RLR651
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Smt. Agyawanti, respondent is the landlord ofQuarter No. 3 Block No. 1, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi. She let out tworooms, Verandah, Kitchen, bath room and open space on ground floor toD.N. Vohra, Appellant for a fixed period of 22 months with effect from 17/07/1976 for residential purposes after obtaing permission dated 15/07/1976of the Controller, under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter called 'the Act'). The appellant executed the lease deed dated 19/07/1976 in terms of the permission but did not vacate the premises onthe expiry of the said period. An execution application was filed for obtainingpossession. The appellant filed objections which were dismissed on 12/10/1979 and his appeal was also dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal videorder dated 21/02/1980. We has come up in second appeal under s. 39 of the Act.(2) In his objections the appellant pleads that in October 1969 theentire ground floor consisting of three rooms, kitchen, lat...
Raghunath Rai Vs. Hari Bai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT287
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The facts of this appeal are as follows. A double storeyed house B-45 (Ground-floor) and B-46 (First-floor) in Ramesh Nagar was sold to one Hari Bai by the Managing Officer on August 7, 1973. The certificate of sale was registered on November 28,-1973, but the certificate states that the purchase shall take effect from 11.3.1958. Krishan Dev Dewan (AW 1 ) was the property dealer and through him the appellant Raghunath Rai was inducted as a tenant in the ground-floor (B-45) at the rate of Rs. 38.00 per month. Krishan Dev came to occupy the first-floor (B-46) in 1970. Hari Bai gave a power of attorney on 12.9.1972 in favor of Krishan Dev arid his wife in respect of the whole house. It was also stated in the power of attorney that she had agreed to sell the said property in favor of Krishan Dev. On 23-1 1-1972, Hari Bai filed an eviction petition against tenant Raghunath Rai on several grounds out of which two, mainly default inpayment of rent and subletting, survived. S...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ganga Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-11-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1175; 18(1980)DLT354; 1981RLR186
Prithviraj, J. (1) respondent S. Ganga Singh, was prosecuted under S. 29(2) read with section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on a complaint filed by the appellant, Delhi Development Authority, on the allegation that he on or about 19th September 1964, had permitted the ground floor and 1st floor of the building bearing No. H-89, Ring Road, N. D. S. E.-1 for the purpose of running office of various concerns, namely, Gupta Property Dealers, Navyug Property Dealers and Cirugia Delux Pvt. Ltd., in the contravention of the Master Plan of Delhi and Section 14 of the Act. (2) The Trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 28th October, 1975, acquitted Ganga Singh by giving him benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution had not conclusively proved the case against him. (3) The Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called the 'Authority') has filed the present 'appeal feeling aggrieved by the above-said judg- ment. (4) Brief facts of the case arc as f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »