Delhi Court March 1981 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.
Sumitra Devi and ors. Vs. Harnam Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT6b; 1981(2)DRJ107
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The short question is: whether appeal is barred by time. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). A period of 60 days from the date of the order of the Tribunal is prescribed for filing an appeal in this Court. The impugned judgment and order was passed by the Tribunal on 11th August, 1980. An application was made on 6th October, 1980 for obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment and order. The Copying Department registered the application at Seriall No. 6118 and issued a slip mentioning 14th October, 1980 on which date the applicant was supposed to visit the Copying Department and collect the certified copy. The appellant, it appears, did not visit the Copying Department on 14th October, 1980 as directed but went there on 15th October 198 and collectted the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order. The appeal was filed in this court on 16th October, 1980. On a perusal of the endorsement on the...
Jeewan Dass, Delhi Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1002
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. The appellant before the Court, Jeewan Dass was charged with the offence of murdering Roshan Lal on 23rd January, 1977. The appellant has been convicted under S. 304 Part I, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life per judgment of Shri N. L. Kakkar, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. 2. In support of the appeal, we have heard Mr. S. K. Aggarwal Advocate appearing as amices curiae and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. We have been taken through the records of the case. We have examined the evidence and the circumstances of the case. 3. The prosecution case is a simple one. On 23rd January, 1977, the accused and the deceased were walking near each other in a gali situated near the crossing of the Police Chouki and Qutab Road. This gali is situated in Chinot Basti, Lachhman Puri. It appears that the shoulder of the deceased struck the accused Jeewan Dass and at that time the maker of the First Information Report Shri Beer Karan was about 25 years b...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Prem NaraIn Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR407(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The question referred to us in relation to the assessed, which is an HUF, related to the assessment year 1962-63. The question is in the following term : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any amount was includible in the assessed-family's total income by reason of its having received rights shares of M/s. Koolaire P. Ltd. ?' 2. This question has arisen because the shares of the HUF were held in the name of Shri Prem Narain Aggarwal, as karta of an HUF, who also happened to be the managing director of M/s. Koolaire P. Ltd. The ITO had treated the amount of rights shares or bonus shares, which had come to the HUF from several companies, as being perquisites obtained by Shri Prem Narain Aggarwal within the meaning of s. 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961. That section states that when any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, is obtained from a company either by a director or by a person who has a substantial interest in the comp...
Jaswant Rai and Another Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR19(Delhi)
Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a declaration that various penalty proceedings initiated and completed by respondent No. 3 (IAC of Income-tax, Delhi Range IV, New Delhi) and confirmed in appeal by respondent No. 5 (Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C') were illegal, void and/or ultra virus the Constitution ; writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of the said respondents Nos. 3 and 5 and quashing the various orders of penalties and various notices of demand issued by respondent No. 4 (ITO, Companies Circle, New Delhi) and the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ; writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ restraining the respondents from imposing any penalties under the provisions of s. 271 or any other provisions of the I. T. Act in respect of the income voluntarily disclosed by the petitioners and a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wri...
Chatar SaIn Goel Vs. Puran Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi239; 20(1981)DLT25; 1981(2)DRJ145; ILR1981Delhi557; 1981RLR299
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition under proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order, dated February 23, 1980, passed by Shri J.D. Kapoor, Rent Controller, Delhi, granting leave to the applicant to defend the eviction petition filed against him but restricting the defense only to the point of extent of accommodation available with the landlord. (2) The petitioner, Chatar Sain Goel, is in occupation of the premises; bearing Municipal number C-87, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi, consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine, store and an open space as a tenant under Puran Singh on a monthly rent to Rs. 80.00 . On Jan. 16, 1980 the landlord filed an application for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, popularly known as the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The tenant filed an application en February 2, 1980 urder Section 25B for permission to defend the eviction petition...
Union Carbieds I. Ltd. Vs. Dalip Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT420; 1981(2)DRJ184; 1981RLR356
S.B. Wed, J. (1) This is a tenant's revision application against the order of the Rent Controller refusing him leave to contest the landlord's application for eviction u/s 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) S. 25-B is in Chapter III-A which prescribes summary trial where the eviction is sought by the landlord u/s 14(1)(e) or u/s 14-A. Chapter III-A has an over-riding effect on the other provisions of the Act by virtue of S. 25-A Under the Transfer of Property Act a Lesser has a right to evict the lessee for any breach of the Agreement of lease. This common law right of the landlord recognised by the Transfer of Property Act, was fettered by the Rent Control Acts paused after the Second World War. Delhi Rent Control Act and its predecessor Acts follow this direction. These enactments imposed restrictions or control in matters of rent to be charged from the tenants and their evictions. We are immediately concerned with the question of eviction in this petition. The new protection gi...
Sulakhana Malhan and ors. Vs. Shashi Kapoor and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ232
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is the revision application filed by the landladies. (2) Petitioners No. 1 and 2 arc real sisters and own the plot on which the building is constructed. The plot is in Panchsheel Par'k, one of the Posh localities of Delhi, Petitioner No. 3 is the mother of Petitioners 1 and 2 who are the real sisters. They claim that Respondent No. 2 is the maternal uncle of petitioners 1 and 2. Respondent No. 2 is an elderly Advocate practicing in this Court. Respondent No. 1 is the son-in-law who is a tenant in the premises. Considering the relationship between the parties and the fact that Respondent No. 2 is a practicing Advocate of this Court, I thought that the matter could be amicably resolved between the parties. This was for another reason also. Respondent No. 1 is the present tenant of the single storeyed structure. Another storey can be easily constructed on it. Petitioner No. 2, who is a widow and who has recently came from England, wants to construct a first floor for...
W.H. Brady and Co. Vs. Ganesh F. Mills
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: 1981RLR364
B.N. Kripal, J. (1) The short and interesting question which has been raised by way of a preliminary objection to this application u/s 74 of the Indian Trust Act. is as to whether this court has jurisdiction to try this application. (2) A trust deed dated 20.5.70 was executed which is known as the Debenture Trust Deed. Two of the trustees of the said trust were Sh. Gokal Chand D. Morarka and Sh. H. Nevatia. Both those trustees having expired, the present application was filed u/s 74 for the filling up of the vacancies caused by the deaths of the trustees. At the time of the hearing of Ihe application Sh. P, Khanna, the leaned counsel for the dents has contended, by way of preliminary objection, that the High Couit has no jurisdiction to try this application and the application ought to have been filed in the court of District Judge Delhi. [In para 3, S. 74 is reproduced] (3) The contention of Sh. Khanna is that in view of S. 24 Punjab Courts Act, 1918 the High Court is not the principa...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Jullundur Body Builders and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi126; [1983]54CompCas125(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi516
1. This execution case raises the question of a banker's lien. 2. The decree-holder obtained a decree on November 2, 1979, for Rs. 1,04,441.35 with future interest at 9 per cent. per annum and costs against the judgment-debtors, Jullundur Body Builders. In the course of execution, the judgment-debtor said that they will pay the decretal amount in Installments. They were accordingly required to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 90,000. The judgment-debtors approached the Syndicate Bank (the bank) with whom they had an overdraft account. They deposited two fixed deposit receipts with a covering letter with the bank and requested it to issue a guarantee in favor of the Registrar of this court. The particulars of the FDR are under : (1) FDR dated 9-5-80 for Rs. 25,000 to mature on 1-7-85. (2) FDR dated 17-9-80 for Rs. 65,000 to mature on 17-12-83. 3. The deposit receipts were duly discharged in favor of the bank. On September 17, 1980, the bank executed a deed of guarantee for Rs...
Leela Separators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administratio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR170]; ILR1981Delhi24; 1981LabIC1173
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) The question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has also been raised in many others which we have heard alongside. This judgment will apply to all of them.(2) In each case an order has been made under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referring a dispute or disputes for adjudication to the labour court or industrial tribunal. The order has been made by the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration. He purports to have exercised the power delegated to him by the Central Government. The question is whether the Central Government was the 'appropriate Government' to delegate that power.(3) The relevant notification is dated 14th April, 1975, and is published in the Gazette of India dated 26th April, 1975. It reads as follows: IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby directs that the powers of the State Government in regard to the Union terri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »