Delhi Court September 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.
Union of India Vs. Vijay Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT49; 1981RLR215
Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge by which, he has held that the application filed by the respondent u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act (the Act) was filed within time and directed the appointment of the arbitrators in accordance with the conditions of the contract. (2) On 8.6.73 a contract was entered into between the respondent and the Union of India for construction of 48 units of types staff quarters at Moradabad. The contract was to be completed by 8.6.74. This date was, however, extended to 512.74. Apparently, the work was not completed and the appellant, thereforee, rescinded the contract on 6.12.74, The respondent sent a notice, dated 17.10.76 to the General Manager, Northern Railways, requiring that as per the agreement, he was to Act as the sole arbitrator and informing him that he may appoint some one else as an arbitrator, within the prescribed period of 15 days from the receipt of the letter and that if no such arbitrator was appointe...
Shailash JaIn and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi314; 22(1982)DLT201b
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. It is not disputed that the building was constructed in 1975-76, and that it enjoys a rent holiday for five years under the Rent Act. The Municipal Corporation is assessing the petitioner on the basis of the agreed rent which, under the Statute, shall be deemed to be the standard rent of the premises for a period of five years. We see nothing wrong in this assessment of the Corporation and dismiss this petition in liming....
Chetan Dass and Co. and Others Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and Assessing ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1980
Reported in: [1982]49STC138(Delhi)
Chadha, J.1. This judgment will dispose C.W.P. Nos. 622 to 634 of 1974 filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as they raise common question of facts and law.2. M/s. Piara Ram Chetan Dass, petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter called as the firm), was a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, (1) Chetan Dass Bhatia, (2) Ram Lal Bhatia, and (3) Lachman Dass Bhatia. It had its office situated at No. 2046, Katra Tobacco, Khari Baoli, Delhi, and its branch office named and styled as M/s. Rama Hing Company also having its place of business at Katra Tobacco, Khari Baoli, Delhi. Both the head office and branch office carried on the business of purchase, sale and manufacturing of compound hing at their respective places of business mentioned above. The firm also had a godown situated at 15, Kolhapur Road, Delhi. The firm and its branch were registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act), vide registration c...
Mascot Enterprises Etc. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi92; ILR1980Delhi1225
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This petition arises out of proceedings which had taken place in Civil Writ No. 1403 of 1978. Briefly stated, the circumstances in which the petition comes up for hearing are these. (2) The petitioner was a bidder for and was awarded a wholesale dealer's license, known as L-1 license for dealing in Indian made foreign liquor for the year 1978-79. It is common case that at the relevant time no Indian made foreign liquor was manufactured within the Union Territory of Delhi. The same used to be imported from distilleries or manufacturers in other States of the country. Inasmuch as there was no manufacture in Delhi a question was raised by the petitioner that no excise duty is payable on the liquor imported into Delhi. This question was raised by filing C.W. No. 1403 of 1978 in this court on 16th December, 1978. Along with the said writ petition an application had been moved for stay of recovery of payment of excise duty. In fact. there were two applications moved and...
B.P.N. Shrivastava Vs. Poori Bai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi101; 18(1980)DLT31; 1980(1)DRJ184; ILR1981Delhi13; 1980RLR727
Prakash Narain, J.(1) A common question of law that arises for determination in the two appeals is the construction to be placed on the words, 'BYthe fifteenth of each succeeding month' in Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, here in after referred to as the Act.(2) Ln S.A.O No.139 of 1973 the Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the order of the Rent Controller directing eviction of the tenant. The Rent Controller had, inter alia, held that in as much as the tenant had not complied with the order passed under Section 15(3) of the Act, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the said Act. The Rent Control Tribunal had upheld that decision. The order under Section 15(3) of the Act had been made by the Rent Controller on November 3, 1970 directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 175.00 P.M. with effect from January 10, 1970 up to dale within one month of the order and to deposit future rent at the rate of Rs. 175.00 P.M., month by mont...
Bhim SaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi260; 1981RLR52
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Petitioner was a contractor who submitted a tender for a certain contruction. It was to remain open for 60 days from 19.9.78. His tender was lowest but was not accepted. Instead he was asked to extend validity till 19.12.78 which he agreed. But then on 30.11.78, he found steep rise of cost of materials and withdrew the offer. On 2.12.78, Govt. informed the Xen in charge that petitioner's offer was accepted. Petitioner had deposited earnest money from which Govt. could deduct 10% for any default of petitioner. This 10% was deducted and the rest was refunded. After 6 months on 20.6.79, a memo. was issued to the petitioner that by his withdrawal he had acted in a un-business like manner and he should show-cause why his name should not be removed from the approved list. He gave a detailed reply adding that the fact of acceptance of his tender was never communicated to him The Govt. then passed an order of black-listing him for 2 years. He challenged this order by petitio...
Narula Trading Agency Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi1; ILR1980Delhi1099; 1981RLR102; [1981]47STC45(Delhi)
Avad Behart Rohatgi, J.(1) The question that arises for our consideration in this full bench reference does not seem to have been considered by any court. Perhaps the reason is so it seems to us that the answer is very obvious. 'The question referred to us is 'whether in a reference which is pending or where an application has been filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act or section 45(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act the High Court has jurisdiction to grant stay of recovery of tax ?' The question is one of law for the court, and is not an issue of fact. (2) In a sales tax case the Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax referred one question for the opinion of this court under section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (the Act). Other questions which the dealer wanted it to refer for the opinion of this court were refused by the Tribunal. The dealer thereforee has made an application under section 45(2) for an order to the Tribunal to state those questions for opinion which it has refu...
Harbhajan Das Vs. Tilak Raj Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT77
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is a revision by the landlord against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, who by his order dated 26.4.1978 dismissed the application for eviction brought under Section 14(1)(e) read with Chapter Iii of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called the Act). (2) The admitted facts are that the family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife and a son about 7/8 years old. The petitioner is Accounts Officer and is drawing total emoluments of about Rs. 1700.00 per month. On the ground floor of the house there are two sets of two rooms each, being independent units. The respondent is a tenant in one of these sets namely- flat No. 2. The accommodation with the respondent/tenant is shown in red in plan Ex. A-2. The petitioner was previously posted at Kanpur and was transferred to Delhi sometime in February, 1977. The(petitioner filed application for eviction in May, 1977 on the ground that he required all the four fooms for his bonafide use/...
Canara Bank Ltd. Vs. Govind Ram Rajinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1980
Reported in: [1981]51CompCas476(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi701
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This order will dispose of R.F.As. 325 and 459 of 1970- The first appeal is filed by Canara Bank Limited, defendant No. 1, and the other appeal has been' filed by Bank of Baroda, defendant No. 2. (2) The appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Claas, Delhi, dated 9th January, 1970 whereby the learned Subordinate Judge had passed a money decree or recovery of Rs. 10,000 against the appellants (defendants 1 & 2) and M/s. Universal Traders, defendant No. 3, on a suit filed by the plaintiffs for conversian. The plaintiffs in the suit were M/s. Govind Ram Rajinder Kumar, Bareilly (plaintiff No. 1),.M/s. Govind Ram & Sons, Bareilly (plaintiff No. 2) and M/s. Mithan Lal Mangal Sain, Delhi (plaintiff No. 3). Plaintiff No. 2 is a branch of plaintiff No. 1. (3) Plaintiff No. 2 used to purchase cloth from plaintiff No. 3 on credit and used to pay for the goods supplied by plaintiff No. 3 at their convenience. (4) The...
Suraj Bhan Sarad Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1198
M.S. Joshi, J. (1) The officials of the Food and Supplies and Police Departments of Delhi Administration visited the premises of Messrs Suraj Bhan Sarad Kumar, Kashmiri Lal Puran Mal, Prabhu Dayal Rama Nand, Lakhi Ram Om Prakash and Babu Ram Panna Lal on 14-2-1980 and seized there from the following quantities of mill-made and Khandsari Sugar : (1) Suraj Bhan Sarad Kumar 1,617 Quintals (2) Kashmiri Lal Puran Mal 1,261 (3) Prabhu Dayal Rama Nand 1,393 (4) Lakhi Ram Om Prakash 1,821 (5) Babu Ram Panna Lal 1,952 All the aforesaid five Firms held licenses under the Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 an were permitted by those licenses, read with the Lt. Governor's orders on the subject, to stock sugar to the tune of 1,000 quintals except Messrs Babu Ram Panna Lal due to the expiry of whose license they could stock sugar not more than ten quintals. (2) According to the dealers Khandsari sugar was not 'sugar' for the purposes of the aforesaid Licensing Order, which Order they submilte...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »