Delhi Court February 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.
JaIn Shudh Vanaspau Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi371
Prakash Narain, J. (1) By this group of petitions the respective petitioners pray. for a writ of certiorari quashing the rejection of their respective applications for grant of import licenses to import into India Palm Oil, a writ of certiorari quashing certain conditions imposed by the Import Policy contained in a Public Notice dated February 22, 1978 as being vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue import licenses to the said petitioners for import of Palm Oil which they had respectively contracted to import from foreign sellers in pursuance of Import Policy announced by. the Central Government which was suddenly changed by a Public Notice dated January 13, 1978. Since all the petitions raised common questions of law and had more or less similar averments offacts, we .heard them althogether, Unfortunately, return was filed only on Civil Writ No. 78 of 1980. No returns were filed in the other matters as the respond...
P.N. Sikand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: [1981]131ITR9(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. These references under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, raise a very short point in regard to the computation of property income. They relate to the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the previous years being the relevant calendar years. 2. P. N. Sikand, the assessed, obtained plot No. 12, Block 39, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi, on perpetual lease from the President of India. Though it appears that a lease deed was executed in favor of the assessed by the President, that lease is not on record and the matters up to this stage have proceeded on the footing that the lease is subject to the terms and conditions set out in a memorandum of agreement dated December 30, 1954, between the President of India and one Vashesharan Devi. We shall, thereforee, only refer to the terms of this argument in deciding the question at issue. 3. Broadly speaking, under the agreement, the President agreed to lease out the said plot of land to the lessee on payment of R...
Sushil Prasad Vs. Vinod Motors (Pr.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas52(Delhi); 20(1981)DLT85
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The short question which comes up for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner is a secured creditor or not. (2) The Company in liquidation belonged to the family of the petitioner. It ran into financial difficulties. Large sums of money were owed by the Company to the Central Bank of India. (3) The case of the petitioner is that he, along with his father and brother, was the owner of the property known as Swiss Hotel, Delhi. In order to see that the dues of the Central Bank of India from the Company in liquidation were cleared, the petitioner and his father and brother agreed to sell the said Swiss Hotel, Delhi to M/s. Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt Ltd. The money which was to be realised from that was to be utilised for paying off the Central Bank of India for and on behalf of the said Company. According to the petitioner the Company had agreed that the money which is so paid would result in a mortgage or a charge being created by the Company of its pr...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. H.S. Kalra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ666; 20(1981)DLT124; ILR1981Delhi563; 1981RLR535
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this appealmoved by the Delhi Development Authority against the acquittalby Shri Gulab Tulsiani. Metropolitan Magistrate of H. S. Kalracharged under section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act (hereinafter referred to be 'the Act') are in a narrow compass, and arenot much disputed. Premises bearing No. 806. Arjun Nagar,Kotia Mubarakpur, New Delhi, falls within the residential zoneas per Master Plan of Delhi, brought into vogue from 1962.A part thereof was being used as a store of a co-operative society.The same being not for residential purpose, had to be treated asnon-conforming use under the Master Plan. Before the trial 'court, a certificate from the Assistant Special Registrar of the Co-operative Society Delhi was. tendered which showed that the premises was being used for commercial purpose from 1949.(2) That apart, a portion of that premises which was beingso used for commercial purpose, was given over to the respondentH. S. Kaira, in th...
Ram Parkash Saroj Vs. Mohinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT393; 1981(2)DRJ113; ILR1981Delhi671
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of C.R. Nos. 352 and 353 of 1979. Civil Revision No. 353 of 1979 relates to the tenant Nazar Singh. These revisions under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') are directed against the two judgments and orders dated 15th July, 1978 of the Additional Controller dismissing the eviction applications of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. (2) Ram Parkash Saroj, petitioner, filed eviction applications against hit tenants Mohinder Singh and Nazar Singh on the ground that he was the owner of the suit property, that the premises were let for residential purposes, that be bona fide requires the premises in their occupation and that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Mohinder Singh has been a tenant in respect of one room, kitchen, bath, W.C. and a miani above bath arid W.C. on the ground floor at monthly rent of Rs. 40.00 since 1961. Nazar Singh has been a tenant...
Punjab National Bank Finance Limited Vs. Shital Prasad JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi125; [1983]54CompCas66(Delhi); 19(1981)DLT368
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to the above mentioned cross appeals against order of the Single Judge dated 16th November, 1979, succinctly are that in December, 1976 the plaintiff-PNB Finance Limited (a public limited company) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. l9,55,890/37p. against Shital Prasad Jain (defendant No. 1), his son Mukul Jain (defendant No. 2), Rajadhani Vanijya Ltd. (defendant No. 3), Poorvanchal Projects Ltd. (defendant No. 4) (both defendants 3 & 4) being public limited company) and Emnjay Overseas (Private) Limited (defendant No. 5) on the averments that defendant No. 1 had been Financial Adviser of the plaintiff from 1st February, 1972 to 11th June, 1975. Pursuant to a request made by defendant No. I on 7th November, 1974, a loan of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (rupees five lakhs only) was given to him on 23rd December, 1974, at 16% per annum as interest. Defendant No. I executed a promissory note on the same day in consideration of his having obtained the loan. Ther...
Jai Raj Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT398; 1981RLR572
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present petition under Section 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated July 17, 1980 of Shri S.G.Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) Jai Raj petitioner brought a suit for recovery of possession of house on field No. 70/1, of Village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi before the Circle Panchayat (Adalat) situated at Poothkalan in the Union Territory of Delhi. Before that PaiKhayat Chand Ram produced a will purporting to be from Sint. Phool Kaur, who is mother of Jai Raj petitioner and maternal grand mother of Chand Ram to the effect that she had bequeathed the aforesaid property to Chand Ram respondent No. 2. That Panchayat held the will to be forged one. It further held that the petitioner was entitled to the possession of the property and accordingly passed a decree for recovery of possession in favor of the petitioner and against respondent No. 2. (3) Feeling aggrieved respondent No. 2 filed an appeal against the judgment a...
Vardesh Chander Chanana Vs. Prem Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi164
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal on behalf of the landlord under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against an order dated 19th September, 1977 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi reversing the judgment and order of eviction against the appellants passed by the Additional Controller on 31st July, 1972 and finally dismissing the eviction application. Behari Lal predecessor of the respondents was a tenant on the. first floor and the Barsati floor of property No. 11320/1 Plot No. 14-A/41, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi under the appellant. He died in 1962 leaving behind his widow Smt. Durga Devi, five sons and three daughters. Smt. Durga Devi died on 29th June, 1967 leaving behind the respondents as her heirs and legal representatives. The respondent thus became tenants being heirs of Behari Lal and Smt. Durga Devi under the appellant, After the death of Behari Lal, his widow Smt. Durga Devi built a property on P...
South Asia Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi196
Leila Seth, J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, the income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred for our opinion the following questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 45,088 incurred on account of commission of inquiry expenses is not allowable as revenue expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the amount of Rs. 19,170 on account of expenses of the law department could be allowed as deduction in determining the company's profits ?' 2. The assessed is a private limited company belonging to a group of companies controlled by Mrs. R. Dalmia. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1958-59 and the corresponding previous year is the year ending March 31, 1958. 3. On December 11, 1956, the Govt. of India (Ministry of Finance, Dept of Economic Affairs), in exercise of the power under s. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointed a Commission of Inquiry...
Vivek Kumar Vs. Pearl Cycle Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas77(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi665
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this Application, and connected Application being C.A. 144/80, u/s 446 of the Companies Act and C.As. 134 and 406/80, a former Joint Managing Director of a Company, in liquidation, and two members of his family, seek to challenge the validity of consent decrees passed against the Company in favor of a banking institution as early as the year 1966 and thereafter, inter alia, with a view to stall sale of the assets of the Company in execution of those decrees. C.A. 441/79 is by Vivek Kumar s/o. Surender Kumar, the former Joint Managing director of the Company. C.A. 144/80 is by Surender Kumar himself. By C.A. 134180, Kumud Kumar, respondent in C.A. 441/79, wife of Surender Kumar, seeks to be transposed as a co-petitioner in that application. By C.A. 406/80, Vivek Kumar seeks to transpose the Company, arrayed as a respondent in C.A. 441/79, as a co-petitioner. These applications were made in the backdrop of the following facts and circumstances. (2) Pearl Cycle Indust...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »