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.
Diamond Pocket Books P. Ltd. Vs. Prasad Nyas and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1981
Reported in: 1989(17)DRJ110
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) This is a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, rendition of accounts filed by Diamod Pocket Books Pvt. Ltd. and Punjabi Pustak Bhandar against Prasad Nyas, Prasad Prakashan and Rattan Shankar Prasad.(2) By order of this Court dated 29-7-88 and 27-10-88, defendants were directed to file their written statement No. written statement has been filed as directed by the Court. In this view of the matter, in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code . if the defendants fail to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit upon such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up. There is yet another reason for adopting this course for pronouncing judgment against the defendants.(3) The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration seeking a declaration that copyright to the works of late Shri Jai Shankar Prasad, who d...
Peter Samual Wallace Vs. Inspector General of Police, New Delhi and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1195; 20(1981)DLT333
Charanjit Talwar, J. 1. The petitioner, Peter Samual Wallace, an Indian Citizen, by this petition seeks removal of his name from the surveillance register maintained by the Delhi Police. According to him, the orders of his surveillance and opening of history sheet against him by the Delhi Police pursuant to the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Delhi, constitute an infraction of his fundamental right guaranteed to him under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders passed in the year 1964 are also challenged on the ground that those were made mala fide and were based on no material. 2. The petitioner claims to be a respectable person. He states that he is the General Manager of M/s. Watson Manufacturing Co. (India), New Delhi, a firm carrying on export business. According to him, he is also the Regional Manager in India of two American Companies. His case is that he is a social worker of repute being President of two organ...
Amar Singh Vs. Hans Raj Sachdeva and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi224; 20(1981)DLT17; 1981RLR515
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. Issues were framed on 10th November, 1978 and by an order dated 15th May, 1979 the suit was adjourned to 8th August, 1979 for plaintiff's evidence on which date the suit was adjourned for plaintiff's evidence to 3rd October, 1979. The Presiding Officer was on leave on 3rd October, 1979. The suit was adjourned for proper order to 10th October, 1979 on which date 15th January, 1980 was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.(2) Order 16 rules I and I A of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Act 104 of 1976 are as under :- 'List of witnesses and summons to Witnesses : 1(1) On or before such date as the court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attend...
Pushpa Rani Vs. Krishan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi107; ILR1982Delhi851; 1982RLR268
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The respondent Kishan Lal led a petition against his wife Pushpa Rani for dissolution of their marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act The husband alleged that they were married on March 10, 1974 and were living in the house of, and along with the family of, Hans Raj Juneja and his wife Bindra Devi whom the husband treated as his parents. He further alleged that the wife used to pick up quarrels with him and threatened to involve him in some criminal case. On July 28, 1976 at about 10.30 a.m. while he was in the bath room, she tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself and setting herself to fire in the kitchen. On hearing her shrisks, he rushed to her rescue. He and Smt. Bindra Devi removed her to hospital, where she was looked after by June as. Moved by her entreaties, he agreed not to report the ture facts to the police, lor the sake of matrimonial happiness. But she resumed threatening him with dire consequences, and declared that she w...
Alkarma Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi230; 20(1982)DLT53; ILR1982Delhi343; 1981RLR387
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The facts.This case raises a rather interesting point. It arises upon a petition under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act (the Act). It arises in this way Shri Jai Kishan Das of M|s Alkarma, petitioner, is a contractor. He entered into a contract with the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the execution of work of construction. He was awarded the work of fixing aluminium windows in Vikas Minar, a building where Dda sits. This work was awarded to him in 1973.(2) The contractor did the work. While the work was in progress certain disputes arose between the parties. The contract contains an arbitration clause. This is clause 25. It reads : 'EXCEPT where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality or workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever, ...
Ram NaraIn Sharma Vs. Mahesh NaraIn Sharma and the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT80
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code. of Criminal Procedure is for quashing proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (herein after referred to as New Code) pending since November, 1977, in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate (Kotwali), Delhi. (2) The dispute is with respect to the possession of a room, known as Baithak of property No. 2354-55 situated in Gali Dharampura, Delhi. Separate Municipal No. of that baithak is 2353. (3) Ram Narain Sharma, petitioner married thrice. Respondent No. 1, Mahesh Narain, is son through first wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is living with his present wife and children from the wife in a house at Krishna Nagar, Near Shahdara. (4) According to the petitioner he was in possession of the aforesaid baithak. On October 22, 1977, which happened to be the festival of Bharat Milap, the petitioner lodged a report at about 6.55 Pm, which was entered at No. 70 of daily diary at P.S. Kotwali, ...
Mohd. Sabir Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1120; 20(1981)DLT345
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1981 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 91 of 1981. (2) There is a tussle between two groups (party No. I and party No. 2) belonging to the same community, over the management of the Society known as Sarai Khalil Welfare Society and possession of seven shops attached to the Mosque described at Makki Jama Masjid, Inderlok. The first party is headed by Bhaiya Abdul Salam. The second party comprises of 6 persons and is headed by Sabiqur Rehman. The third party, that is, Mohd. Iqbal and 5 others claim to be the tenants of the 7 shops. (The 7th alleged tenant is Bhaiya Abdul Salam). (3) In 1977, the Delhi Development Authority allotted a plot of land in Inderlok to Sarai Khalil Welfare Society for construction of a Mosque. The construction of the Mosque and the shop was completed in October, 1980. Party No. 2 who claim themselves to be the members of the managing committee of the society alleged that applications for all...
Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-iv Vs. Sat Parkash Agarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR880(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. The assessed, Sat Parkash Agarwal, it an individual. This reference relates to the assessment year 1967-68 for which the assessed's previous year was the financial year 1966-67. 2. It appears that on some day prior to May 31, 1966 (the exact date is not available) the assessed's wife, Smt.Kamlawati, had made a disclosure under s. 24 of the finance (No. 2) Act of 1965, in respect of a sum of Rs. 5,000. There were similar declarations on behalf of the assessed's four minor children each in respect of a sum of Rs. 5,000. As required by the Finance Act, above refereed to, these declarations were accepted by the CWT and taxes were paid in accordance therewith as contemplated by s. 24 of the said Finance Act. 3. In the books of the assessed for the financial year 1966-67 relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, five credits appeared each in respect of Rs. 5,000 in the names of the wife and minor children of the assessed. Two of these credits appeared in April, 1966, and th...
Swaran Yash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR734(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. These are two income-tax references at the instances of the same assessed. They relate to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The relevant previous years were the financial years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The references arise under identical circumstances and the questions of law referred to us are common in respect of both the assessment years. They read as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the non-inclusion of the share income of the minor arising from the firm in which the assessed is a partner in the hands of the assessed, is a mistake capable of being rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 155 of the Act can be treated as orders passed under section 154 of the Act ?' 2. The assessed, Smt. Swaran Yash, ...
Mohinder Singh Vs. Iqbal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1773; 20(1981)DLT20; 1981(2)DRJ155; 1981RLR407
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Smt. Iqbal Kaur, landlady, filed a petition for eviction of the appellant. wherein an order of eviction was passed by the Controller on 7th November, 1973. Mohinder Singh, tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and on 18th April, 1975 he made a statement withdrawing his appeal and sought time to vacate the premises up to 30th April, 1977. He also undertook to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the respondents on or before 1st May, 1977. The landlady alleges that the tenant did not deliver possession according to his undertaking. She thereforee made an application on 15th March 1979 before the Rent Control Tribunal to take proceedings against the tenant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Tribunal served the tenant by publication and referred the matter to this Court vide order dated 25th September, 1979. The tenant-contemner filed his reply. His contention is that the contempt proceedings initiated by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »