Delhi Court November 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.
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi272; 1982(3)DRJ114
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein called 'the Act') filed by Smt. Sushila Devi Aggarwal, challenging the decree of annulment granted by Miss Usha Mehra, Additional District Judge, Delhi, by her judgment passed on 11th November, 1980, on a petition filed by the respondent herein, Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal.(2) The case of the husband was that the parties to the petition were married on 20th February, 1977, at Faridabad (Haryana). After the marriage they came to Delhi and lived for about 2 to 3 days. During that period the marriage was not consummated as the parties could not have any sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the wife left for her parents' house. When she came back after about ten days or so she stayed at Delhi with her husband for another ten days and again left for her parents' house. The case of the husband was that during the period of stay of his wife at Delhi she never mensturated. During the days when the wife was s...
S. Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. Rajni Kant, Settlement Commissioner and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1981
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ287
Avadh Behari Rohalgi, J.(1) Possession is nine-tenths of the law This case illustrates it. The battle in this case is about vacant possession of a property bearing house No. 58, situated on Chruch Road) Bhogal, to which the N.D.M.C. has given municipal number 4936 and Khasra number of which is 594. Its area is 422 sq. yards. The petitioners are in possession of 275 sq. yards of this plot. The dispute relates to this land. The property has a long history; It was owned by one Chaudhry Chand Khan and his two brothers. It appears that during the riots of 1947 Chand Khan left Bhogal and went to reside in Nizamuddin. His brothers and his nephews were killed during the disturbances of 1947. From the report of the Assistant Custodian (judicial) dated December 27, 1963 it appears that the residents of the locality saw the dead bodies of daceased persons being carried away in trucks in the riots of 1947. They testified to it. The Custodian of Evacuee Property in 1948 teeated this property and tw...
income-tax Officer Vs. R.M. Nayar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD841(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 21-7-1980 in Appeal No. 928 of 1980-81 of the AAC whereby a sum of Rs. 24,244 brought to tax by the ITO, on the ground that this amount was not exempt under Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), was deleted.2. During the previous year ending 31-3-1977, relevant to the assessment year 1977-78, Shri R.M. Nayar, the assessee, was the Chairman-cum-managing director of the Electronics Trade and Technology Development Corporation, New Delhi. During the course of the business of the aforesaid company, the assessee was required to undertake certain foreign tours. For the purpose of these foreign tours, the assessee was granted certain specific allowances. Out of these specific allowances in respect of which the sanction of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained, the assessee made certain savings. The details are as under :------------------------------------------------------------------------------Names...
Raghbir Singh Vs. Kanahya Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT1
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This is an appeal by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated May 4,1978. The relevant facts are these. (2) The appellant is a tenant of shop No. 3 under the respondent-landlord. The shop measures about 100 sq. ft. The shop was let out in 1955. In 1969, the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had built a loft in the shop which had substantially damaged the walls. The petition was filed under clause (j) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (3) Both the parties led evidence before the Rent Controller. The landlord besides examining himself, examined AW-2 Shri Phool Ghand Goel, Chartered Civil Engineer and Architect. The tenant examined PW-2 Jagmohan Singh Architect. The Additional Rent Controller on an examination of the evidence found that the tenant had constructed the loft but it had caused no damage to the shop. (It may be noticed here that the plea taken by the tenan...
Uday Kaushish (Minor by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Mrs. Sheila K ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1981
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Del)217; [1982]137ITR906(Delhi)
RANGANATHAN J. - 'Sheila Theatre 70' is a building jointly owned by three brothers, Ajay Kaushish, Sanjay Kaushish and Uday Kaushish, each of whom is entitled to an one-third share in it. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of minor, Uday Kaushish, by his mother, Mrs Sheila Kaushish. There are four prayers in the writ petition : (1) to quash and set aside the order dated April 24, 1974, made by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (respondent No. 1) dismissing the application of the petitioner under s. 25 of the W.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); (2) to quash and set aside the reference made by the WTO (respondent No. 3) under s. 16A of the W.T. Act, referring the question of valuation of the Sheila Theatre to the District Valuation Officer (respondent No. 4); (3) to restrain the District Valuation Officer (respondent No. 4) from proceeding with the valuation of the property above mentioned in pursuance of the reference made by the WTO referred to above; and (4) ...
Mehta Teja Singh and Co. (Agencies) and Other Vs. Globe Motors Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas883(Delhi)
Avadh Behari, J.1. This case is a good example of delay in litigation. An application under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was made by the petitioners, Mehta Teja Singh & Co. (Agencies), and its three partners, on 27th November, 1973. The respondents, official liquidator of Globe Motors Ltd. (In liquidation), opposes it. Oral evidence was taken in this case. Witnesses were examined on both sides. The court has power to order that the evidence be given by affidavit. The matter ought to have been decided on affidavits. But for some reason which is not clear from the record oral evidence was adduced which has resulted in a delay of 8 years in deciding a simple application under s. 20. Apart from this, pleadings in the case are neither precise nor concise. The official liquidator has raised the plea of fraud but has given no particulars of the plea. He has alleged breach of the provisions of the Companies Act but has not specified which particular provision has been breached. 2. The p...
Nathu Vs. Hukam Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi216; 21(1982)DLT219; 1982RLR260
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The principal question of law raised in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is the right of male lineal decendants to impugn an alienation of Bhumidari Rights granted under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, based on the customary law applicable to the proprietors of agricultural land before the enforcement of the said Act. It has arisen in these circumstances.(2) Hukam Singh son of Jit Ram is the real brother of Narain Singh, Ramesh Chander is the son of Marain Smgh. They are Jats by caste and dependant solely on agriculture. Hukam Singh and Ramesh Chander, respondents I and 2 herein (plaintiffs in the suit) filed on August 29, 1962 a suit for declaration to the effect that the mortgage without possession dated June 27, 1962 for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 8,000.00 , registered on June 30, 1962, executed by Narain Singh respondent No. 3 herein (defendant No. 2 in the suit) in favor of Nathu appellant before us (who is defendant No. 1 in the suit) reg...
Anand Builoers and Anr. Vs. Driplex Water Engineerin'g (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1981
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi269
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is an application under sections 5 and Ii of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act) for the removal of the sole arbitrator Shri S. N. Mukherjee. (2) On an application under section 20 of the Act filed by the contractor Mjs. Anand Builders I appointed on 6th April. 1981 Mr.S. N. Mukherjee as the sole arbitrator. Mr. Mukherjee is an advocate. He appears before the arbitrators in disputes arising out of building contracts. Both the employer Mrs. Driplex Water Engineering (P) Ltd. and the contractor Anand Builders agreed on the name of Mr. Mukherjee. I, thereforee, appointed him. (3) On 15th April, 1981 my order was communicated to Mr. Mukherjee. On 30th August, 1981 he wrote to the parties. In that letter he said that he had received on that very day a letter dated 21st April, 1981 from the contractor through his advocate, Mr. N. S. Sistani, asking him to enter upon the reference. On 24th September, 1981 the present application was filed by the employer, M/s...
Udai Lal Vs. Savitri Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1981
Reported in: 21(1981)DLT84
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 15th January, 1980 confirming the order of the Controller dated 3rd November, 1979 dismissing the objections of the appellant-judgment debtor. Brief facts are that Jagdish Parshad, predecessor of the respondents tiled an application for eviction of the appellant in this appeal as well in S.A.O. Nos. 76 and 77 of 1980. An order of eviction was passed on 3rd June, 1976. Unfortunately the landlord Jagdish Pershad decree-holder died on 20th November, 1976. His heirs respondents took out execution wherein the appellant in all the three appeals filed objections against execution on the ground that the heirs were not entitled to execute the order of eviction and that since the passing of the eviction order the Central Government had withdrawn the general circular requiring the Governmen...
indo-american Electricals Ltd. Vs. M.L. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT102
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This revision petition under proviso to Sub. section (8) of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1953 (hereinafler referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order, dated 19th September 1979 passed by learned Rent Controller, Delhi, refusing to grant leave to the petitioner-tenant to defend the eviction-petition filed against it by the responbent-landlord and as a result passing an order for eviction against the petitioner-tenant. (2) The case of the respondent-landlord. Col. M.L. Sharma as set up in the eviction petition was that the premises in dispute were let out to the petitioner-tenant. M/s. Indo-American Electricals Ltd. for purposes of residence of their manager or any other officer on 16-9-1966 and the same are now required for occupation as residence for himself and for other members of his family dependent upon him. (3) It was also pleaded by the respondent-landlord that he is the owner of the premises and that he has since retired as col...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »