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.
Manohar Lal Vs. Life Insurance Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi171; [1982]52CompCas379(Delhi); 19(1981)DLT38a; ILR1980Delhi1305
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The plaintiff Manohar Lal took a joint policy on his life and the life of his wife, Sita Rani. from the Sun Light of India Insurance Company Limited on May 23, 1956 for a period of 25 years in the amount of Rs. 25,000. He paid the annual premium of Rs. 906.25. The term of the policy was that in the event of death of either of them before the date of maturity the sum assured was payable to the survivor. (2) Sita Rani died on June 22, 1957. The plaintiff made a claim on the defendant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, (Corporation), which took over the assets of the Sun Light Insurance by virtue of Act. 31 of 1956. The Corporation by their letter dated 20/21st November, 1959 repudiated the claim on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and that there was no valid contract of insurance between the plaintiff and the Sun Light Insurance on which a claim could be made. (3) On March 22, 1960 the plaintiff brought an action aga...
Bawa Potteries, Mehrauli Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1980
Reported in: 1992LC152(Delhi); 1981(8)ELT114(Del)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of crockery and porcelain ware in its factory at Mehrauli. It was selling its manufactured goods through its own selling depots in various parts of the country at a uniform retail price as per their price list. The petitioner had no price list showing the ex-factory price or the wholesale cash price for purposes of Section 4 of the Central Excises Act. The Central Excise authorities determined the assessable value of the goods of the petitioner for the purposes of levying excise duty on the basis of the retail prices. It will be appreciated that the retail prices at which the petitioner sold the goods were burdened with the various expenses of the post-manufacturing stage such as establishment, advertisement, distribution expenses, cartage, railway fright, special packing charges and so on. The petitioner claimed that the wholesale cash price or the dutiable value should be arrived at by deducting the following percentages from the ...
Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Harpal Singh Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT412; 1981(2)DRJ27
Saltan Singh, J. (1) This is tenant's petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') challenging the order of the Additional Controller dated 8th November, 1979 by which he dismissed the petitioner's application for leave to contest the eviction application filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Consequently he also passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. Chapter Iiia was inserted in the Act by Act 18 of 1976 with effect from 1st December, 1975. There are two sections 25A and 25B in this chapter. It prescribes a summary trial for applications for recovery of possession filed by a landlord claiming eviction under Section 14(1)(e) and section 14A of thke Act Section 14A of the Act was also inserted by the said amendment of 1976. Section 25B of the Act prescribes a special procedure for disposal of applications on the ground of bona fide requirement. After the service of summons of the eviction application a...
NaraIn Das Vs. Krishan Lal Longani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT419; 1980(1)DRJ113
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is an appeal on behalf of the landlord under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') challenging the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd November, 1977 reversing the order of eviction passed by the Controller under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The appellant is the owner of a building F-79, Lajpat Nagar-I New Delhi on a plot of land measuring about 200 sq. yards. The respondent is a tenant in a flat consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath and latrine located on the ground floor of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs 260.00 . The premises were let to him in July, 1969. The entire property has four similar flats i. e. two flats on the ground floor and two on the first floor. In the other flat on the ground floor the landlord and his family have been residing. The two flats on the first floor have been in occupation of the tenants. There has been change of tenants in the flats on the first floor from...
Duli Chand Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and Naushadar Bar Association ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT478
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 100(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) against the order and decision dated 23rd November, 1978 of the joint Registrar of Trade Marks. By the said order the Opposition No. DDL-1556 of the appellant was dismissed and the application No. 237253 was directed to be registered in part 'A' of the Register of Trade Marks. (2) On 26th August 1966 an application was made to the Registrar of Trade Marks by Shri Dwarka Pershad Bindal and others who were carrying on business under the name and style of Naushadar Bar Association. By the said application the applicants wants to get registered a trade mark which consisted of a label containing the device of two half sun, the word Sun and the letters B. C. 1. in Glass I in respect of Ammonium Chloride bars for use in Industry. (3) On the said application hauing been advertised the appellant herein filed a notice of opposition to the registration of t...
S. Jagjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1139
S.B. Wad, J.(1) These eight appeals are filed by the tenants allotees against the order of the Single Judge passed on March 12, 1970, dismissing their writ petitions. The appeals are primarily directed against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelling their allotment on the ground of habitual default in payment of rent. The orders were passed under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954 read with Rule 102(d) of the Rules framed under the said Act. (2) The appellants were inducted as tenants, on various dates in 1947, by the then Sikh owners of property known as 7, Jantar Man- tar Road, New Delhi. 3/5 share of the property was sold to some Muslims in 1951, who were later on declared as evacuees. That share, thereforee, vested in the Custodian in 1953. The other 2/5 share was acquired in 1956. The entire property went under the control of the Managing Officer in 1956, and the appellants became allottees under section 14 of the Act. ...
Vijay Kumar Puri Vs. Miss Usha Mehra and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT398
ORDER1. By this petition Shri Vijay Kumar Puri, the petitioner herein, has challenged the legality of the order passed on May 5, 1980, by Miss Usha Mehra, Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby a fine of Rs. 500 was imposed on the petitioner for committing contempt of Court. In default of payment of fine, it was directed that he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days. 2. A petition under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking a decree for divorce, has been filed against the petitioner which he is contesting. He has not engaged a counsel and is appearing in person. The facts leading to the impugned order are that in reply to the application filed under S. 151 of the Civil P.C. on behalf of his wife, seeking maintenance, the petitioner averred : 'The Hon'ble Court should not be a party to the litigation and the Court should pronounce the order in accordance with the law set out in the C.P.C.' Mr. S. R. Goel, Additional District ...
Union of India and Others Vs. Hind Lamps Limited, Shikohabad, U.P.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT11(Del)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th September, 1976, whereby Civil Writ No. 685 of 1968 was granted and the orders of the Excise authorities directing in additional payment of excise duty on the manufacture of glass shells and glass tubes by M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd., were quashed. 2. The facts giving rise to the Writ Petition can now be set out. The petitioner, M/s. Hind Lamps manufacture electric bulbs and fluorescent tubes in its factory at Shikohabad. In addition, it manufactures glass tubes and glass shells which may be described as component parts of electric bulbs and fluorescent tubes. These glass shells and components can be used by other manufacturers of electrical bulbs and fluorescent tubes. The company sells its entire production of manufactured glass shell and tubes to a Calcutta firm known as M/s. Unipro Lamp Components which in turn sells these parts to any interested buyer. 3. The excise duty was paid for the period 1961 t...
Vijay Construction Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1980
Reported in: 1981RLR303
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) These are 2 petitions moved u/s 20 of Arbitration Act for getting disputes under contracts no. 41 dt. 13.8.73 & no. 69 dt. 11.12.72, referred to arbitration. According to petitioner it duly executed the contracts but several of its claims have not been paid for nor finally settled. There are said to be differences between parties on those claims. (2) From the side of the respondents, it has been asserted that several of the disputes raised are excepted matters covered by Clause-63 of the General Conditions of Contracts, Regulations and Instructions applicable to such contracts. Such excepted matters, it is urged, were determinable by the engineer or other officers attending to the contracts on behalf of the Railways. It is pleaded that such matters cannot be referred to arbitration. (3) As these cases have now come up for hearing, reference has been made from the side of the petitioner to a circular issued by the office of the Chief Engineer of the No thern Railway ...
Pritam Singh Vs. Bhajan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT396; 1980(1)DRJ118; 1980RLR705
Sultan Singh, J.(1) HEARD. Records examined.(2) This is a revision petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It appears that the petitioner was served on 18.12.1979 and he filed an application for leave to contest on 18/1/1980, accompanied by another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein he gave the reasons for not filing the application for leave to contest prior to 18/1/1980. The Additional Controller dismissed the application for leave to contest on the ground that there was no provision for condoning the delay in filing the said application. This observation of the Additional Controller does not appear to be correct. Mr. Mittal states that the Limitation Act is not applicable to Rent Control proceedings and, thereforee, section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. It may be so but the Rent Controller has inherent jurisdiction. In Gurditta Mal v. Bal Sw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »