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.
Brahma Kumari Vs. Sarwan Singh and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT53; 1981(2)DRJ117; 1981RLR486
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal on behalf of the landlady under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 1977 of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing her eviction application confirming the order dated 15th October, 1975 of the Additional Controller. (2) To appreciate the questions involved in this appeal, it is necessary to recall the history of the previous litigation regarding the suit premises. One Shri Dayal Sharma was owner-landlord of premises No. 6391 at Plot No. 65-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. Sarwan Singh, respondent No. 1 was her tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 17.00 . On 27th September, 1965 Shri Dayal Sharma filed an eviction application against Sarwan Singh on the grounds of eviction mentioned in clauses (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act alleging that he had sub-let the premises; he has built or acquired suitable accommod 1ation at C-3,...
S. Tarsem Singh Vs. Gulzar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ97
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) Today only C.M. 448/81 is listed for hearing but the learned counsel for the parties agree that the appeal itself be decided. (2) Learned counsel for the parties further agree that the impugned order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 13th January, 1981 be set aside and the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated 24.7.1980 be restored. (3) In view of the agreement between the parlies the appeal is accepted. The order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13th January, 1981 is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 24.7.1980 is restored. (4) Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of the present appeal. Dr. Gurdit Singh Bajaj Shri Ramesh Chander --- *** --- ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-ii Vs. Hindustan Times Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR670(Delhi)
1. This is an application under s. 2356(2) of the I. T. ACt, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax who seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions for the decision of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I. T. A. T. was correct in law in in lowing the provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,86,461 as an admissible deduction? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of there case, the I. t. A. T. was correct in law in holding that the proportionate interest of Rs. 1,22,129 disallowed by the ITo is an admissible diction u/s. 36(1)(iii)?' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, the relevant facts are in a very benefit compass. The assessed has debited a sum of Rs. 1,86,461 to the sales and wages account by wy of a provision for gratuity. It is common ground that this provision was made in respect of the non journalist employees of the company to whom the company has to pay gratuity in ac...
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dharam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi157; 19(1981)DLT376; 1981RLR226
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This petition concerns with election of a workman- member to the office of a Trustee of the Employees Benefit Fund Trust. This fund is established by the D.C.M. Through the impugned order dated 17.11.1980 senior Sub Judge(B.N. Chaturvedi) set aside the order of the trial court. The learned Judge also restrained the petitioner from giving effect to the result of the election declared on 25.10.1980 and restraining Shri Harphool Singh the elected workman to take over and to act as the Trustee till the disposal of the suit. (2) Interference in the democratic process of elections, particularly at the interim stages, should be spairing. The democratic process should not be stopped in between, because the final result can always be challenged. It is also well established that where the election is challenged, the elected representative should be allowed to perform his duties. If he is restrained in between the General Body of Electorate, would be deprived of their elected rep...
Jugal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi345
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The petitioner was appointed as a Ticket Collector in Northern Railway on 7-7-1951 after passing the competitive test. He was performing his duties satisfactorily for 20 years. Between 1970 and 1972 number of departmental proceedings were held against him. In the three enquiries the orders were passed withholding his increments for different periods. He was censured in three proceedings. One proceeding was dropped and in one proceeding he was given the benefit of doubt. He was suspended for six months when the first proceeding was held against him in 1970. After the suspension order was revoked it was ordered that the period of suspension will not quality him 'for increments, leave and retirement benefits.' He was thrice transferred from Delhi during this period but the orders were cancelled after his representation. In 1972 adverse remarks were passed in his confidential report and the remarks were communicated to him. In this petition the petitioner has challenged al...
Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Hira Lall and Son and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas313(Delhi)
1. At the conclusion of the arguments on the application for leave to defend the suit I pronounced the judgment on 16th February, 1981. I refused leave and decreed the suit in terms of the prayer made in the plaint. Now I give my reasons for refusal of leave. 2. The plaintiff, Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. Delhi, has brought this suit for the recovery of Rs. 18,44,944.80 against the defendants, M/s. Hira Lal and Sons, and its partners under 0.37 of the CPC. 3. At the request of the defendants the plaintiff bank opened a letter of credit in favor of M/s. Palmex Enterprises, Singapore, for US Dollars 205,992.51. The defendants had agreed to buy from Palmex PLVC Resin suspension under a contract of sale, dated 13th July, 1979. Palmex was the seller (hereinafter called 'the seller'). Defendants were the buyers (hereinafter called 'the buyers'). The plaintiff was the issuing banker. In their application to open a documentary credit made to the plaintiff bank the buyers agreed to pay as 'prim...
S. Malgaonkar and ors. Vs. Jagmohan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT5; ILR1981Delhi853
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present petitioners, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Code), pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against them in the court of a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.(2) The aforesaid criminal proceedings were started on a complaint in writing dated June 6, 1979 of ShriJagmohan (hereinafter referred to as respondent) praying that the present petitioners and one Javid Liaq be prosecuted and punished for commission of offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code for defaming the former.(3) Shri S. Malgaonkar, petitioner No. I is Editor-in-Chief of a daily newspaper 'Indian Express', Shri Ajit Bhattacharjee and Shri R. K. Mishra are the Editor and printers and publishers respectively of the said newspaper. Shri Javid Liaq was a correspondent of that newspaper. In the Indian Express issue 'of April 19, 1977 on pages I and 5 an article appeared under the heading, 'THE ...
Gulraj Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: 1981RLR361
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) Ndmc had resolved on 15.5,73 to impose Scavenging tax. Govt suggested certain modifications' After meeting them Govt. issued notification on 2.2.76. saying that the tax would be imposed w.e.f. 1.4.76. Ndmc, few days before this, had on 29.1.76 resolved to review the question. In a special meeting on 10.2.76, it resolved to drop the proposal and asked Govt. to revoke the notification. On 20.1.78, Ndmc resolved that as Govt. had not revoked notification of 2.2.76, Ndmc should go ahead with recovery of sca. tax w.e.f. 1.4.76. Demands were made from petitioner and others. Petitioner filed writ against it. It was held that notification of 2.2.76 was invalid as it did not give the minimum statutory period of 3 months of inposition of tax u/s 62(10). That the proposal to levy tax in 1976 was withdrawn by resolution of 10.2.76 and tax could not be imposed by resolution of 20.1.78. The latter was a new proposal requiring fresh notification. That S. 61(v)(e) shows that tax can...
Bramha Kumari Vs. Sarwan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi833
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal on behalf .of the landlady under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 1977 of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing her eviction application confirming the order dated 15th October, 1975 of the Additional Controller. (2) To appreciate the questions involved in this appeal it is necessary to recall the history of the previous litigation regarding the suit premises. One Shri Dayal Sharma was owner-landlord of premises No. 6391 at Plot No.65-A, Kamla Nagar Delhi. Sarwan Singh, respondent. No. 1 was her tanant on a monthly rent of Rs. 17 on 27th September, 1965 Shri Dayal Sharma filed an eviction application against Sarwan Singh on the grounds of eviction mentioned in clauses (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act alleging that he had sublet the premises; he has built or acquired suitable accommodation at C-3, Rana Prat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›