Delhi Court May 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.
Wire Netting Stores Delhi and anr. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Com ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT18; [1981(43)FLR158]; 1981LabIC1015; (1982)ILLJ7Del
Prakash Narain, J. (1) These two appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court who by a common judgment dismissed .the two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Appellants. (2) The appellants have been running a factory since 1947. They manufacture wire-netting rolls, wire-netting, wire gauze, wire cloth and 'Jaali', from G. 1. wires. By an order dated February 23, 1965 (Annexure A-l), the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner New Delhi, the first respondent informed the appellants that on enquiries made by his department it has been revealed that their factory is an establishment to which the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Scheme framed there under (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) was attracted with effect from January, 1965. A code number allotted to the appellants' establishment was communicated and they. were called upon to deposit the arrears of contributio...
Arun Kumar Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi314; [1983]54CompCas176(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.1. The petitioner is a non-resident citizen of India. He resides at Lima-Peru, South America, and carries on business of import end exhibition of films there. He holds 'Non-resident foreign exchange accounts' in Indian banks. In 1978 he had U.S. Pound 2,66,000 and Pound 11.000 in this account. He also holds foreign exchange amount to about U.S. Pound 5,00,000 in a London bank. With the permission of the RBI he started that is called 'Holiday on ice-shows' at various places in India. Bradly speaking, the scheme sanctioned by the Reserve Bank was that the petitioner would use his foreign exchange reserves in India for payment to the foreign artistes. The foreign artistes were not permitted to take out of India any foreign exchange nor the equivalent in India currency. By a letter dated December 23, 1980, the respondent refused the permission to hold further ice-shows. This writ petition is filed against the said order of the respondent dated December 23, 1980. When the petiti...
Jamila Begum and ors. Vs. Jumma Alias Billu Rehman and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT445
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 23, 1977 of the first appellate court confirming the decree dated November 24, 1975 of the trial court dismissing their suit for declaration that they have been in occupation of the suit premises as co-tenants. (2) The relevant facts are, in 1948 Hafiz Abdul Rehman husband of plaintiff No. I and fatlier of plaintiff No. 2 and 3 took on a monthly rent of Rs. 5.00 one room, a kitchen, latrine, store, stair case and open courtyard on the first floor of property situate at Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi from Mst. Qamar-ul-Nisa widow of Hazi Abdulla. This property was sold to various persons and was lastly purchased by Jumma alias Billu Pehiwan defendant No. I by deed dated April 20, 1967. Hafiz Abdul Rehman became a contractual tenant under him. He died on March 11, 1968 leaving behind three sons namely, Gulam-ul-Rehman, Fazal-u...
A.K. Bhatia and ors. Vs. Viman Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT46; 1981(2)DRJ164; 1981RLR440
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated August 5. 1980 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi closing the evidence of the petitioner except his own statement subject to payment of Rs. 100.00 as costs, (2) The petitioner on July 21, 1978 filed an application for eviction of the respondent under section 14(l)(a)and(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act').. After the filing of written statement by the respondents, the matter was fixed for December 11, 1978 on which date arguments regarding order under section 15(1) of the Act were heard but the passing of the order the proceeding was adjourned for evidence of the petitioner to May 14, 1979. The parties Were directed to file their list of witnesses within 15 days presumably under Order 16 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act 104 of 1976. The Additional Controller intended to avail of causal leave on May 14, 1979....
Shanti Sharma and ors. Vs. Ved Prabha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT127; 1981(2)DRJ197
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present appeal is against an order dated August 22, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dismissing an appeal of the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and affirming an order of an Additional Controller directing eviction of the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from a premises described hereinafter the ground of bonafide requirement of respondent No. 1 Smt. Ved Prabha Verma, who is the owner and landlady. (2) Plot Nos. 15-A/34 & 35, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi were taken on perpetual lease from Delhi Improvement Trust by Rai Sahib Dina Nath who constructed a building on the same. He let out a portion of the said premises consisting of two rooms with covered verandah, a bath, a W.C. and a kitchen on the ground floor to one Amar Nath. Amar Nath died in December 1966. He left behind the appellants and respondent No. 2 as the only heirs. Dina Nath died on March 24, 1967. His widow Smt. Bhagwan Devi and daughter Smt. Ved Prabha filed a petition for ev...
Central Bank of India and Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1476; 20(1981)DLT98
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This order will dispose of two revision petitions, No. 246/80 and 247/80. (2) The Central Bank of India, Branch 58A Jor Bagh, New Delhi, is run in a residential area and thereforee, it was convicted on November 15, 1976 under Section 29(2) read with Sections 14 and 31 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (the Act) for user not conforming to the Plan and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 . On October 31, 1977 the field staff of the Delhi Development Authority again found that the Bank was continuing its branch even after the said first conviction. On that date N.D. Kapur was the Manager of the said Branch. The Bank and the Manger N.D. Kapur were again prosecuted by the DDA. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted them under the aforesaid sections by his order dated July 18, 1979 and sentenced the Bank to a fine at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per day amount ing to Rs. 7000.00 and sentenced N. D- Kapur to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default whereof to undergo simp...
Jiwan Das Vs. NaraIn Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi291; 1981RLR596
Sultun Singh, J.(1) Narain Dass and his mother Sm. Jassi Devi have moved an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act in the court of Shri Jagdish Chandra. Additional Distt. Judge, Delhi seeking reference to arbitration of the dispute, arising between them and Khushal Chand Chandana, respondent No. 1, under an agreement of sale dated 8.9.1979 pertaining to quarter No. A-32 Outram Lines, Delhi, as also plot No. 301, Dr. Mukherji Nagar, Delhi. It was stated that the price settled was Rs. 45.500.00 out of which Rs. 5,000.00 were paid to Khushal Chand Chandana. The latter was to obtain permission for that sale from the L. & D. 0. New Delhi, and Municipal Corporation and within a month thereof to execute the sale-deed. The L. & D. 0. required Khushal Chand by its letter dated 5.1.1980 to pay the unearned increase of Rs. 3,125.00 and thereafter the permission could be granted. (2) However, in the meanwhile, because of rise in the prices of the properties, and with ulterior motive to avoid sa...
Kuldip Singh Dhingra Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT141
M.L. Jain, J.(1) Brief facts are that the appellants are owners of the property No. 85) Golf Link, New Delhi. The property was assessed to house tax in the year 1971-72. It was proposed to be revised for the year 1972-73. The property owners claimed that they are residents of Amritsar. A notice under sub-section (2) of section 215 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (the Act) was sent in a registered cover addressed to their Amritsar address by the New Delhi Municipal Gommittee (herein the committee). It appears that these notices were returned unserved because the addresses were not available on the given address. The committee thereforee, issued fresh notices and served them by affixation on the property in Golf Links, New Delhi under sub-section (1) of section 215 of the Act. No body appeared in response to this notice and eventually the tax was revised and a demand of Rs. 7559-10 paise was raised. The owners filed a suit for permanent injunction and prayed that the defendant committe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›