Delhi Court August 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 1 of about 36 results (0.021 seconds)Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Eternal Science of Man's Soci ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1559
Smt. Leila Seth, J.1. These eight references pertain to three different assessed, but as the points involved are common, they are being dealt with together. These references have been made by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi. The assessed-respondent in the Income-tax Reference Nos. 136 to 138 of 1977 is the Eternal Science of Man's Society, New Delhi, and the assessment years are 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. In Income-tax References Nos. 219 to 221 of 1977, the assessed-respondent is M/s. Daulat Ram Public Mission, New Delhi, and the assessment years are 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. M/s. Daulat Ram General Education Society, New Delhi, is the assessed-respondent in Income-tax References Nos. 226 and 227 of 1977 and the assessment years are 1969-70 and 1970-71. All these assesseds are charitable institutions. 2. The question in the respective references are as follows : Eternal Science of Man's Society, New Delhi. '1. Whether, on the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!Lajwanti and ors. Vs. Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi67; 18(1980)DLT449; 1981RLR30
Sachar, J.(1) This judgment would dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 798/78, 558/78 and 219/79 as common question of law is involved in them.(2) This matter was admitted to a Division Bench by one of us (Sachar J) because there was a conflict of view between two learned Single Judges of this Court as to whether Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 or Section 7(xi)(cc) of the said Act applies in a suit filed by owner of the house for possession of the premises on the ground that the tenant whose tenancy had been terminated during his life time had died and the premises are now in occupation of his heirs.(3) The respondent No. 1 has filed a suit claiming that the premises were in the tenancy of one Ram Sunder Bhatia whose tanancy was terminated by notice dated 6th January, 1958. It was further averred that after the termination of tenancy, the said Bhatia continued as a statutory tenant. He is stated to have died on 18th February, 1970. Defendants No. 1 to 9, who are heirs of Bhatia, sho...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi Vs. the Eternal Science of M ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Del)384; [1981]128ITR456(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. (1) These eight references pertain to three different assesseds, but as the points involved are common, they are being dealt with together. These references have been made by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi. The assessed-respondent in Income-tax References Nos. 136 to 138 of 1977 is the Eternal Science of Man's Society, New Delhi and the assessment years are 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. In Income-tax References Nos. 219 to 221 of 1977, the assessed-respondent is M/s. Daulat Ram Public Mission, New Delhi and the assessment years are 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. M/s. Daulat Ram General Educa- corporation Society, New Delhi is the assessed-respondent in Income-tax Ref- erences Nos. 226 and 227 of 1977 and the assessment years are 1969-70 and 1970-71. All three assesseds are charitable institutions,(2) The questions in the respective references are as follows : The Eternal Science of Man's Society, New Delhi1. Whether on the facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvati Devi and anr. Vs. G.C. JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ81
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) In this petition under article 227 of the Constitution the petitioners-tenants are challenging the order dated 12th March, 1975 passed under section 19(l)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956, whereby permission to file eviction petition was granted to the respondents No, 2 and 3. (2) The petitioners are tenants under the respondents No. 2 and 3 of the Barsati of the second floor of the house bearing No. 1368, Kucha Ustad Hamid, Bazar Gulian, New Dariba, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 34.00 . (3) Some time in the year 1970 an application had been filed by the respondents /landlords seeking permission u/s 19(l)(a) of said the Act, that application was rejected and the permission not granted by the Competent Authority vide order dated 8th September, 1970. By the said order it was held that the emoluments of the tenants came to Rs. 339.00 per month, but that was not sufficient to enable the petitioners to get alternative accommodation without creatin...
Tag this Judgment!Zohra Bai Vs. Abdul Wali
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT407; 1980(1)DRJ120
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal by which he set aside the order of the Rent Controller and directed the respondent/tenant to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs. 18.00 per month w.e.f. 13/11/1969. The Rent Controller had directed the payment of arrears @ Rs. 50.00 per mensern.(2) The petitioner/landlord has filed an eviction petition on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent under clause (a) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (to be culled the Act). The landlord who had purchased his property from the custodian had been given the sale certificate in 1964. He moved application for fixation of.standard rent. The Rent Controller by an order of 22/9/1966 fixed Rs. 50.00 per mensern as the standard rent. That order was sought to be set aside by the tenant but he failed before the Rent Control Tribunal. At the time when the eviction petition was filed by the landlord on 29/3/1972 the tenants' appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Ram Vs. Gayatri Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT82; 1980(1)DRJ126
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three appeals, namely, S.A.O. Nos. 138, 139 and 140 of 1979 by three different tenants against their landlady Smt. Gayatri Devi in whose favor the contraller and the Rent Control Tribunal passed an order of eviction on the ground covered by clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against all the three appellants. It has been held that the three tenants have built ard required vacant possession of residential house No A-6/25 Krishna Nagar, near Lal Quarter, Delhi. It has also been held that Ganpat Ram, tenant-appellant has been allotted residential quarter No. 3 7,Seelampurlll, Shahdara, Delhi. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgments of the Controller and the Tribunal on the ground that the three tenants-appellants have neither but nor acquired vacant possession of the residential House No. A-6/25, Krishna Nagar, Near Lal Quarter,...
Tag this Judgment!Harvinder Singh Vs. the Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT75
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By this judgment I am disposing of five petitions (Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 271 of 1980, Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 294 of 1980, Criminal Miscellaneous (Main No. 298 of 1980, Criminal Writ No. 46 of 1980 and Criminal Writ No. 47 of 1980) as the question of law raised therein is common. (2) In criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 271 of 1980 the petitioner Harvinder Singh, who is facing a trial under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, claiming himself to be a 'better class' undertrial seeks directions to the police that he should not be handcuffed while being escorted from the jail to the Courts and back on the dates of hearings. The petitioner seeks a further direction to the police that while being taken from the jail to the hospital for treatment he should not be handcuffed. (3) Similar directions are sought by petitioner Ghander Mohan in Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 294 of 1980. He also claims to be a 'better class' undertrial. He is facing a n...
Tag this Judgment!Naubat Rai Ahluwalia Vs. Shyam Sunder Khanna,
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980(1)DRJ138
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is tenant's appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Controller Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the; Act') Challenging the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order of eviction passed by the Additional Controller against the appellant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act :(2) The appellant has raised two points ; (A)All the heirs of Kishori Lal Khanna deceased ought to hive filed the eviction application under clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act and that Shyam Sunder Khanna son of the deceased, alon.' is not entitled to institute the eviction case. (b) That Shyam Sunder Khanna, respondent No. 1 is not the owner. The relevant facts for the decision of these two questions are :(3) The appellant, Naubat Rai Ahluwalia became a tenant from 28/6/1962 under Kishori Lal Khanna with respect to the suit premises. Kishori Lal Khanna died in 1968 leaving behind his son Shyam Sunder Khanna, respondent No. 1, Widow Smt. Phool Rani, respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Pi-akash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980RLR649
M.S. Joshi, J.(1) Om Prakash, petitioner, is being tried by the court of Shri A.K. Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, for an offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act. The accused has preferred the present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the said proceeding8 being quashed. The one simple question arising in the case is whether the Magistrate has any jurisdiction to proceed against the accused because the prosecution undertaken by the Magistrate was never sanctioned by the District Magistrate as required by section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959. (2) The pistol involved in the case was said to have been recovered by A.S I. Raghunath Singh from the petitioner on 9.1.1979. An Asstt. Commissioner of Police investigated the matter and concluded that the recovery alleged to have been effected by the said A.S.I, was false and a report was consequently made to the Magistrate concerned for the case being struck off. Rather than accepting the report of the police the learned magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Vacuum Glass Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas421(Delhi); ILR1980Delhi969; 1980RLR718
Avadh Behart Rohatg, J.(1) The short question that arisesfor decision in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionis whether the petitioner company. Hindustan Vacuum Glass Limited(Hindustan), is an 'undertaking' within the meaning of section 20(a)(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969(the Act).(2) Number of preliminary objections were raised by the Covernment. But finally the Union of India agreed to have a ^^^(..111from this court on the question whether Hindustan is a memopolyhouse.(3) Hindustan carries on business of manufacturing and sellingvacuum flasks and refills. The respondent Ministry of Law. Justiceand Company Affairs of the Government of India, claims that Hindustan is an 'undertaking' to which section 20(a)(ii) of Part 'A' ofChapter Iii of the Act applies because its own assets together withthe assets of its inter-connected undertaking is not less than 20 crorcsof rupees. If Hindustan is held to be an 'undertaking', as is the caseof...
Tag this Judgment!