Delhi Court January 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cycle Equipment (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi639
S.B. Wad, J. (1) M/S. Cycle Equipments (P.) Ltd., the petitioners, (C.W. 1284179) run a factory for manufacturing free- wheels of cycle in Kalkaji Industrial Estate. The factory is located in premises No. 8 Kalkaji, New Delhi. They were running the factory under a Municipal license issued under Section 416 read with Section 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. This license is required as the factory is in the city of Delhi. The object of the license is to ensure that no objectionable industrial activity is carried on in densely populated city of Delhi. The other object is to see that no nuisance is caused to the inhabitants of the neighborhood. Under the Master Plan for Delhi only light and small scale Industries are permitted in the city of Delhi. Light small scale Industries as described in the Master Plan do not emit large quantities of smoke or create noise and light nuisance. (2) The first Municipal license was issued in the year 1960-61. An application for the licens...
Shashi Kumar Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi169; 19(1981)DLT170; 1981(2)DRJ57; 1981RLR191
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenants/ appellants is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated April 28, 1980 confirming the judgment and order of the Additional Controller, Delhi, dated March 23, 1979 whereby an order of eviction was passed against the appellant under section 14(l)(a) read with proviso to section 14(2) of the Act. (2) Shashi Kumar, appellant, is a tenant under the respondents in a portion on the first floor of property situated at 176/23, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 140.00 besides electricity and water charges. The respondents had purchased the suit property on July 2, 1975. The appellant has been in arrears of rent since January 1, 1978. The respondents allege that the rent was payable in advance every month. A notice dated February 18, 1978, was issued by the respondents...
Union of India Vs. M.S. Rana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: 1981RLR283
Avadh Behari, J.(1) One Harbhajan Singh was a Govt. Contractor doing work for the Govt. Union of India had a dispute with him. In terms of Cl. 25 of the agreement between them, dispute was referred to sole arbiirator, Mr. N.C. Gupta of the Ministry of works and Housing. The arbitrator made an award in favor of Union of India. (2) At the time matter was referred, Harbhajan Singh had died leaving behind 4 sons, 2 daughters & a widow. Heirs appeared before arbitrator. He heard them. He came to the conclusion that a sum was due to the Union of India from the deceased Harbhajan Singh. In his award he said : 'in view of my findings on the foregoing claim/counterclaims, I hereby award that the claimant (Union of India) is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,958.59 to be recovered from the estate of the deceased Shri Harbhajan Singh in the hands of the present respondents in full and final settlement of the above claims and counter-claims.' This was his award dated 28.3.1978. The arbitrator filed the a...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Vs. Pop Corn.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC36(Delhi)
Leila Seth, J. 1. This reference under section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, has been drawn up at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The question referred for our opinion is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in holding that stapled polythene bags in which the pop corn was sold by the dealer are not sealed containers as mentioned in entry No. 1 of the Second Schedule appended to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 ?' 2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1968-69. The respondent M/s. Pop Corn was a registered dealer. It sold pop corn in polythene bags after stapling the said polythene bags. The only point in issue is, whether the respondent was entitled to claim exemption from tax under entry No. 1 of the Second Schedule appended to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The said entry reads as fol...
Jai Parkash Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1340; 19(1981)DLT234
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) Jai Prakash of village Milakpur, Najafgarh, Delhi, stands convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. (2) The prosecution case as stated on record, brings out that Chander Bhan (P.W. 2) had two brothers, named, Birkha and Bhim Singh. His wife Smt. Ram Piari was the victim of the incident in the present case, and was killed. They have one daughter Miss Bala (P.W. I )Birkha's family lives in the same house in which Chander Bhan resides. Smt. Kalawati (P.W. 3) is the wife of Birkha, while Ishwar Singh (P.W. 6) and Miss Omwati (P.W. 4) aged 18 years, are their son and daughter. Jai Prakash appellant is the son of the third brother Bhim Singh. He resides in a different house in the same village. His father had died earlier, while his mother is alive. . (3) According to Ishwar Singh (P.W. 6), about 10 or 15 days before 10.2.1977, Jai Prakash had asked Ghander Bhan t...
Yogeshwar Prasad Vs. Jyoti Rani Prasad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi99; ILR1981Delhi359
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The marriage between the parties which took place on March 4, 1960, was dissolved on March Ii, 1977, on accusations of cruelty and desertion leveled by the wife Mrs. Jyoti Rani. She then made an application on May 25, 1977 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein the Act), for permanent alimony. She also made an application under Section 24 of the Act on April 20, 1978, turn maintenance pending the determination of the application under Section 25 and expenses of the prosecution of that application. The petitioner husband raised preliminary objections. He contended that under Section 24. it is the husband and wife who are entitled to such maintenance but after the dissolution of the marriage that relationship had come to an end and thereforee that section is not applicable. It was next contended that the words 'proceedings under this Act' occurring in Section 24 refer only to the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, divo...
K.M. Bindra Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT384
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This appeal, under Clause I Oof the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated February 26,1973. (2) On the basis of an interview before the Selection Board, the appellant, Shri K.M. Bindra, was selected for appointment as temporary Clerk Grade III. This post was offered to him vide letter of the Secretary, Establishment Department, High Commission of India in London, dated March 26, 1958. Inpursuance of this offer, he joined the said-post on March 28, 1958. The appointment was liable to be terminated on one week's notice on either side. He was also to be on probation for a period of three months. The appellant was promoted to a higher post of temporary Clerk Grade Ii on March 2, 1959. Admittedly, he was never made permanent. (3) At the time when the appellant joined service all the employees; of the High Commission, including the appellant, were governed by local civil service conditions called 'Estacode' terms. These terms wer...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Dil Bahadur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi478; 1981LabIC1481
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) The first respondent Dil Bahadur was in the service of the petitioner Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (DCM for short) as a watchman. After an enquiry he was dismissed from service by an order dated 24th March, 1972. At that time an industrial dispute was pending adjudication between the Dcm and its workman including the respondent. The company thereforee moved the Industrial Tribunal (Second respondent here) seeking approval of the action taken in dismissing the first respondent as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The second respondent however, by an order dated 12th July, 1972 dismissed the application of the company and refused to accord approval to its action in dismissing the first respondent. The company has thereupon preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent as without jurisdiction and as involving an error apparent from the record and praying that this court should issue a wr...
Murlidhar Dalmia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1981
Reported in: [1981]129ITR67(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. These are five reference petitions under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act of 1961 (the Act). They relate to the accounting years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, In all the five references one identical point is involved. This judgment will govern them all. 2. The assessed, Shri Murli Dhar Dalmia, was an officer of Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Delhi. He was appointed some time in 1936. In that year, he was provided with a residential accommodation by the mills at a rent of Rs. 25 per month by virtue of his being in its employment. Since then he continued to be in the employment of the Mills and continued to occupy the residential accommodation at the same rate. He retired in 1976. 3. For the first time in the assessment year 1967-68 the ITO acting under the provisions of s. 17(2)(ii) of the Act found that the accommodation provided to the assessed by his employer was on a concessional rent. He accordingly, charged to tax the aggregat...
National Labour Institute and anr. Vs. Prem Chandra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT216
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order dated 19-8-1980 of the Rent Controller, Delhi dis. missing the petitioners-tenants' application for leave to defend and consequently passing an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. (2) The respondent-landlady let out the ground floor of the property at plotB4/181, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi to the petitioners namely National Labour Institute and Dr. Prayag Mehta, Dean of the said Institute in July 1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 850.00 . The eviction petition was filed on 20-3-1980 alleging that she was the owner of the said property, that the premises were let out for residential purposes, that she required the premises for herself and for her two dependent children i.e. one son aged 13 years and one daughter aged 11' years. She alleged that she was residing in the house of her mother and that she ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »