Delhi Court August 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 3 of about 36 results (0.027 seconds)Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Chanderbhan Harichand a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1980]126ITR709(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The assessed, M. S. Chanderbhan Harichand & Co., Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, was a partnership firm with four partners holding equal shares. It was registered under the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The statement of case referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relates to the assessment of the firm for the year 1964-65. For this year, the return was filed on May 18, 1965, according to the statement of case and there was an application in Form No. 11A, instead of under Form No. 12. This particular form is filed only when there is a change in the constitution of the firm of the relevant accounting year, but the change actually took place after the end of the accounting year. The ITO pointed out the error to the assessed which led to the filing of a declaration in Form No. 12, duly signed by he partners. The ITO passed an order under ss. 184/185 of the Act whereby he rejected the application for registration. He held that none of the conditions menti...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Kheni Chand and
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT135; 1980(1)DRJ79; 1980RLR692
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The appellant had let out shop No. 692, Lal Katra, Nai Sarak to respondent No. 1. A notice of demamd dated 10th August 1963 was sent by the appellant demanding the payment of rent due to it. It was also stated in the said notice that the premises had been sub let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession without the consent of the appellant, by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent no. 2 M/s Bipin Kumar Satish Kumar.(2) Despite the service of demand notice full amount of rent was not paid. The appellant filed aneviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting of the premises. On the filing of the aforesaid petition the rent cotroller passed an order under section 15(1) of the Rent Control Act on 9th September 1964. The tenant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent as well as to pay future rent. The arrears were not deposited within time. The first deposit was made on 15th December, 1964. Thereafter defa...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Lal Mehta, Vs. Prakash Wati
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT314; 1980(1)DRJ102
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is tenant's appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 26th April, 1979 by which it accepted the landlady's appeal from the order of the Additional Controller dated 10/2/1975 and passed an order of eviction against the appellants. The landlady-respondent brought an eviction petition on grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (e) and (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The Additional Controller dismissed the eviction petition. The landlady filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The order of the Controller was set aside and an eviction order under section 14(1)(e) of the Act was passed on 26th April, 1979. The learned counsel for the appellants raises three questions in this appeal: 1. The eviction application does not disclose any cause of action.(2) The premises were not let for residential purposes but were let and used both fo...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Ralliaram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1259; 1980RLR572
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The property in dispute situated in Gali Pardewali, Nawabganj Delhi, was an evacuee property. Later on it was acquired by the Central Government under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 This property was allotted to displaced persons. On the first floor Pallia Ram, respondent No. 1, with his family was residing. On the ground floor one Sarab Dayal was in occupation. He is now depd. He is succeeded by his widow Smt. Ram Piari and his children. They are appellants in L.P.A. 105 of 1976. (2) The Rehabilitation authorities ordered the sale of the property. Oil 20th November, 1955 the property was auctioned for the first time. Railk Ram gave a bid of Rs. 21,300. His bid was accepted, He paid 10 per cent of this amount, namely Rs. 2130 at the fall of the hammer. But the remainder of the price he did not pay. As a consequence bids initial payment of 10 per cent was forfeited and the sale was cancelled. (3) A second time the auc...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Vohra Vs. Sharwan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT271; 1990(19)DRJ153
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) A second appeal against the judgment of Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 8-12-1987 was filed by the appellant tenant in the year 1988 it came up for hearing before this Court on 24-5-88 after hearing, the appeal was dismissed in liming and the following observation were made: THEREare concurrent finding of fact of both the Courts that the appellant deliberately refuse to accept the notice. There is no merit in this appeal The same is dismissed. The appellant is, however granted one year's time to vacate the premises subject to his filing an affidavit, in this Court within two weeks from today, giving an undertaking that he will hand the peaceful vacant possession of the premises in question to The respondent. on or before May 31, 1989 and will continue to pay the compensation for use and occupation of the premises by 15th of each month and will not part with possession of the premises in question to any third person during this period.'(2) Thereafter, the appe...
Tag this Judgment!NooruddIn and ors. Vs. Naubat Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1161
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a letters patent appeal from the order of a learned single judge dated March 3, 1972. (2) These are the facts. On May 13, 1964, Chaudhary Naubat Singh, the plaintiff (the present respondent) instituted a suit for a declaration and injunction against five persons. These were : (1) Allahwala Arhti, (2) Noor Uddin son of Allahwala, (3) Ziauddin son of Allahwala, (4) Mohd. Muslim, and (5) Shri Kantoo. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were tenants of two shops near his shop and that they were obstructing his vehicles and carts from carrying goods and vegetables to his shop. He claimed a declaration that he, his servants, his carts and vehicles had a right to use the passage for going to the shop as an easement of necessity. He claimed a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove stone blocks which they had placed to create obstruction in the free movement and passage to the shop of the plaintiff. He also asked for a per...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Seth Vs. Amar Singh Bhalla
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT427; 1980(1)DRJ72; 1980RLR693
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is a tenant's appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the Judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 10, 1978 which dismissed the appeal from the Additional Controller's order dated 18th May, 1977. The respondent-landlord let out portions of first floor and second floor of House No. 1/2, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi at the monthly rent of Rs. 225.00 besides electricity and water charges to the appellant in 1956. On 13th July, 1971 he filed a petition for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent. An order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed by the Controller on 20th October, 1971 requiring the tenant to pay arrears of rent and future rent. An appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by Rent Control Tribunal. The tenant deposited the rents complying with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act with the result the eviction petition was dismissed on 25th August, 1973 holding that th...
Tag this Judgment!interads Advertising P. Ltd. Vs. Bentrex and Co. and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas646(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi681
Jain, J.1. This order of mine disposes of an application of the plaintiff under O. 39, rr. 1, 2 & 3 read with s. 151, Code of civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for the grant of a temporary injunction. 2. The facts germane to the decision of this application succinctly are that in July, 1979, defendant No. 1, M/s. Bentrex & Company, which is a sole proprietary concern of Man Mohan Singh, defendant No. 2, entered into a contract for sale of first grade first quality cloves (Zanzibar quality) of the value of the Rs. 25,00,000 at the rate of US $ 7,950 per M.T., C & F Bombay, to be shipped from Singapore on or before 30th September, 1979. Pursuant to the said contract of sale the buyer/plaintiff established an irrevocable commercial credit from the New Bank of India Limited (a banking Corporation), defendant No. 3 for a sum not exceeding a total of US $ 60,050 on the basis of which the latter issued a letter of credit bearing No. JNP/FLC/677 dated 17th August, 1979, a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhai Gian Chand Mohan Singh Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1982)DLT1; ILR1981Delhi646
Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of P. N. Khanna, J. by which he dismissed the objections filed by the appellant and made the award dated 8-2-1965 given by Mr. 0 .P. Mittal, the arbitrator, in disputes which had arisen between the appellant and the respondent a rule of the court and passed a decree accordingly.(2) The appellant entered into a contract for the construction of a trunk sewer along Najafgarh Road near Tilak Nagar, New Delhi in the year 1957-58. The work was to commence on 27-6-1957 and was to be completed within one year. Soon thereafter i.e. in November 1957 after the work had commenced it was decided to lower the depth of the entire sewer length by another 4.25 feet, 'than originally planned. A schedule for completing the work was chalked out on 17-6-1959. Later the Union of India by its letter of 7-9-1959 claiming that the appellant had not completed the work in accordance with the agreement or the revised schedule, rescinded the contract. This led to a...
Tag this Judgment!Romesh Kumar Bhatta and ors. Vs. Zorrik Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi906
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) In this suit based upon infringement of trade mark, the plaintiffs have sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from infringing their registered trade mark 'Zorex' by using deceptively similar trade mark 'Zorrik' in reject of ties manufactured by them. Further reliefs by way of accounts etc. are sought. ^ (2) Briefly stated, the averments made in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of trade mark 'Zoex from 25th May, 1971 and are using it on ties manufactured by them since 7th June 1965. In the year preceding the mstitution of the suit) their sales from this business amounted to over rupees 8 lakhs. Huge amounts are claimed to be Spent by them over the publicity of. this trade mark. Becanse of superiority of their goods and the extensive publicity and skill in advertising, it is stated the plaintiffs' ties have achieved a unique reputation throughout India. (3) From middle of July 1973, it is alleged the ...
Tag this Judgment!