Delhi Court April 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.
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Vidya Prakash Talwar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Del)220; [1981]132ITR661(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. Though a very interesting question arises in this income-tax reference, we think that in the ultimate analysis it is only a question of fact and the conclusion of the Tribunal should prevail. We may briefly state the facts. 2. The assessed, an individual, was residing in house property bearing 101, Darya Ganj, Delhi. He sold it eventually on December 29, 1964. It is common ground that the assessed had been residing in the above property from 1957 to 1964. 3. On December 1, 1963, the assessed entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the property with one Shanti Devi and also received an earnest money of Rs. 25,000 from her. Under the terms of the agreement, the assessed had to deliver vacant possession of the said house to Shanti Devi. But this could not be done for reasons to be referred later and the sale fell through. 4. Soon after the agreement with Shanti Devi, i.e., on December 17, 1963, the assessed purchased a plot at South Extension in New Delhi. He al...
Ram Prakash Chawla Vs. Amril Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT145; 1981(2)DRJ211
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The only question in this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure is whether the property in dispute is premises within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act .This question has arisen in the following circumstances. The plaintiff-respondent let out a plot of land bearing Municipal No. 355 measuring 200 sq. yards' situated at Prem Gali Gandhi Nagar, Delhi to the defendant/appellant at a monthly rent of Rs. 45.00 with effect from 1st December, 1965 in terms of a rent note dated 19th November, 1965. The tenancy was for a period of eleven months. The appellant occupied the said plot for keeping his animals and using the same as dairy. The respondent permitted him to construct 10 or 11 feet high boundary wall with two doors, verandah and a tin shed. The appellant was also permitted to consruct a Khoka or a hut instead of tin shed.(2) The appellant after occupying the plot is alleged to have constructed a boundary wall besides other structu...
Lila Watti Datia Vs. Karol Bagh Union Club and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT52; 1981(2)DRJ173; 1981RLR524
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the landlady has arisen out of the following circumstances. (2) The appellant took on lease plot No. 6-B/3 Northern Extension Area, RajinderNagar, New Delhi for the purpose of constructing a residential house from the Delhi Improvement Trust, a body corporate under the United Provinces Town Improvement Act (Act Viii of 1919) as extended to Delhi in terms of the deed dated 8/11/1954. She constructed (3) The question : Whether a landlord who had himself let out the premises in violation of the terms of lease deed, was estopped from claiming eviction of her tenant under Section 14(1)(k) of the Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Faqir Chand vs . Ram Rattan Bhanot, : [1973]3SCR454 and it was held that the landlord was not estopped as there can be no estoppel against statute. The appellant on 24/8/1973 filed another petition for eviction out of which this appeal has arisen c...
Pargat Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi328; 20(1981)DLT160; 1981RLR538
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This first appeal under Order 43 rule I (u) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') on behalf of the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st July, 1980 remanding the suit to the trial court. It has arisen in the following circumstances. (2) The plaintiff is employed in post office. He was originally appointed as Junior Assistant at Quetta in Baluchistan Administration and he worked in that capacity till August, 1947 when the partition of the country took place. He opted for India. He was treated as a Central Government employee. The plaintiff represented to the Central Government for fixation of his seniority in accordance with various orders applicable to his case. The respondent- defendant it appears did not fix his senority as demanded. He, thereforee, filed the present suit on 21st May, 1971 for a declaration that his seniority in service was to be fixed with effect from 27th March, 1945 and that he Was entitled to ...
Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta Vs. B.B. Bindal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT437; ILR1981Delhi817
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against an order dated April 17, 1979 of Shri B. B. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi. (2) Vide aforesaid order Shri B. B. Gupta confirmed a temporary injunction issued in favor of Shri Brij Bhushan Lal Bindal, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) restraining Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant No. 1) from interfering in the management of the property known as Modern Industries situate at Sahibabad till the partition of the Hindu Undivided Family properties. (3) The plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1, the plaintiff and other sons of defendant No. 1, namely Seth Jatender Lal, Seth Satender Lal and Shri Mohan Lal Gupta formed Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter referred to as the HUF). 'That Huf is carrying on a number of businesses which are Modern Industries at Sahibabad, Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. at Meerut, S. B. Sugar Mills. Bijnore and Mohan...
Satbir Singh and anr. Vs. Suraj Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas348(Delhi); 20(1981)DLT91
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This first appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated September 26, 1980. One Ashok Kumar died in an accident on February 4 1971 at 3.00 P.M. in Green Park. He was going on his cycle and was dashed by a tractor, Dll 3068, driven by Satbir Singh. The father of the deceased lodged a claim. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,920.00 with interest at 9/o per annum from the date of the award. The learned Tribunal held that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 22 years and that of the father of the petitioner was 41 years. The deceased would have provided financial assistance to his father for 20 years. The earning capacity of the boy could not be less than Rs. 300.00 per month, out of which he would have spared about Rs. 200.00 per month for his father at least for four years until he was married. After marriage, he could have spared Rs. 100.00 per month for his father. Thus, the dependency was valued ...
Budh Prakash Sethi Vs. Sumitra Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT116; 1981(2)DRJ166
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal on behalf of the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the order of eviction passed against him under Section 14(1)(a) read with the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act. (2) The appellant was inducted as a tenant in shop No. 14, Krishna Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi by Anant Ram, Predecessor of the respondents (hereinafter called 'the landlord') in 1962 at a monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 . He sent a notice of demand dated 7th November, 1964 and another notice dated 30th February, 1965 requiring the appellant to pay arrears of rent for the period from 1st February, 1963 onwards. The appellant, it appears, neither paid nor tendered the rent due. The landlord on 22nd April, 1965 filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act alleging that the appellant neither paid nor tendered the arrears, of rent in spite of service of notice of demand. The appellant claimed fixation of ...
Nanda Brothers Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT49; 1981(2)DRJ160; 1981RLR437
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The respondent Shanti Devi is the owner of the disputed premises which were at one time in the occupation of the Nigerian Embassy for three years. They vacated them in 1972. These were then hired by the Hindustan Paper Corporation in 1975 for their office purposes. They vacated them after seven months. Then the premises were taken by the South Town School for 2/3 years in April, 1976. They had to vacate before expiry of their term as the School found some problem in regard to the bye-lane. In January, 1977 M/s Nanda Bros. Exports (P) Ltd. came in on a limited tenancy under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). An application was made by Shanti Devi on February 3, 1977 before the Addl. Rent Controller stating that the building in question was lying vacant and is not required by her for at least one year as she is living abroad and will require the said premises after one year. The Addl. Controller examined her attorney Brij Mohan, who stated that th...
Mohd. Usman Vs. Mababir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: 1981(2)DRJ237
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) In this writ petition the challenge is to the order of the Financial Commissioner who allowed respondent No. 2 to 5's application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Slum Act'). (2) The petitioner was a tenant of part of premises No. 4843, Mohalla Darzian,.Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. The rate of rent was Rs. 18.00 per month. The demised premises consisted of one room. According to the petitioner the said room did not have any residential amenities and he used the said room for commercial purposes only. On 5th September, 1967 landlords filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Act before the Competent Authority. In the application it was stated that the petitioner herein was a tenant in respect of a Baithak in the aforesaid house bearing Municipal No 4843 Mohalla Darzian, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. The landlords sought permission to institute proceedings for eviction of the tenant. The grounds on wh...
Addl Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. J.K. D'costa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Del)224; [1982]133ITR7(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. These are two references under the I. T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Addl. CIT. They relate to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the corresponding financial year being the previous year. A very short common question is involved in both the references. 2. For the above assessment years, the ITO completed the assessment on 28th March 1969. While so doing, however, he did not take any one of the following actions : (i) he did not say anything in the order about the charging of interest under s. 139(1) for the delay in the submission of the returns by the assessed : (ii) he did not deal with the question of the chargeability of interest under s. 217 for the failure of the assessed to file an estimate of advance tax and pay the tax thereon in so far as the assessment year 1965-66 was concerned; (iii) he did not mention anything in the assessment orders regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the 1961 Act though the returns had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »