Delhi Court September 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.
B.K. Bali Vs. Sant Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT410; 1982(3)DRJ42; 1981RLR133
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The short but important question which arises in this Civil Revision is with regard to the service of the summons under the Provisions of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) The respondents (herein referred to as the landlords) filed an application under Section 14 for the eviction of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant). This application was filed on 24th January, !979 under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the said Act. (3) On the application for ejectment having been filed the trial court directed the issue of summons by ordinary process as well as by registered post. It appears that a number of attempts were made but service could not be effected on the tenant. On an application being filed under Order 5 Rule 20, C. P. C. the trial court on 27th November, 1979 ordered that the stmmons be published in 'Janyug'. This publication was effected on 29th December, 1979. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 13th February, 1980 the ...
Kamal Bhandari Vs. Shamsher Singh Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi102; 20(1981)DLT380; 1981(2)DRJ260
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The respondent-landlord on 15th March, 1979 filed an application seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Summons were ordered to be issued in the ordinary manner as well as by Registered A.D. post. Accordingly the same were issued in the form prescribed i.e. Third Schedule to the Act. Ordinary summons was served on 25th March, 1979. The tenant endorsed on the back of the summons, 'received with copy. Signed Mrs. Bhandari. 25-3-1979'. The registered cover containing the summons was sent by the Additional Controller on 31st March. 1979 and was served upon the petitioner-tenant on 2nd April, 1979. (2) The petitioner-tenant on 13th April, 1979 filed an application under Section 25B of the Act seeking leave to defend the eviction application together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay. He stated that he was served with the summons on 25th ...
Anil Gupta Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas301(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This is a petition under s. 155 of the Companies Act for rectification of the register of members of the respondent-company. The prayer of the petitioner is that in respect of 2,500 shares, the names of Shri Rajinder Lal Kapoor and Ravi Krishan Munjal should be removed and the petitioner's name inserted. 2. According to the petitioner, a number of shares of the respondent-company were owned by the Joint Hindu family of which the petitioner's father, late Shri Yogesh C. Gupta was the kerta. The case of the petitioner is that while he was a minor, according to the petitioner his date of birth is 19th November, 1953, his father had written a letter on 1st August, 1970, to the respondent-company. In the said letter it was stated that a partial petition of Yogesh C. Gupta's HUF had taken place on 31st July, 1970. It was further stated that as a result of the partial petition, 1,700 shares had been allowed to each of his two minor sons, that of the petitioner and Sunil Gupt...
Madan Lamba Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Del)98; ILR1981Delhi535; [1983]139ITR849(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. These two income-tax references, pertaining to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 (the relevant previous years being the financial years 1959-60 and 1960-61), can be disposed of by a common judgment as they raise the same question and on similar facts. 2. Madan Lamba, the assessed, is the managing partner of a firm known as Volga Restaurant, New Delhi. He had an eight annas' share in the firm and was also entitled to a salary of Rs. 12,000 from the firm. The two other partners, together entitled to the other half share, were ladies who were closely related to the assessed. During the financial year 1959-60, the assessed was also a partner in a firm known as Volga Caterers, the business of which ended in a loss during the said year. 3. For the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, notices under s. 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, had been served on the assessed. The returns of income for the two assessment years should, in compliance with these notices, have b...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1 Vs. Hans Raj Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Del)92; [1982]137ITR195(Delhi)
Leila Seh, J. (1) At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-fax Appellate Tribunal has referred for our opinion the following question of law : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was liable to be assessed in respect of the income for the whole year from properties at Shahdara, Palwal, Dadri and Kosi for the assessment year 1951-52 ?' The assessed Mr. Hans Raj Gupta is an individual whose main source of income was from his share in three firms. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1951-52, the corresponding previous year being the year ending on 31st March. 1951. The assessed owned some immovable properties at Shahdara, Palwal, Dadri and Kosi which were registered in his name. However, it is alleged that in 1950, the Shahdara property was sold by the assessed to a connected company known as M/s. Raj Enamel Works Ltd. and payment received; the properties at Palwal, Dadri and Kosi were also sold to a connected company M/s. Ha...
Kala Niketan Vs. Kala Niketan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi161; ILR1981Delhi592
G.C. Jain, J. (1) In this suit the plaingtiff, who carries of business as 'Kala Niketan', seeks a decree for permanent injury corporation restraining the defendant, its servants, agensts, representatives and dealers from directly or indirectly, dealing in Sarees and other textile goods as 'Kala Niketan' or any other identical or deceptively similar trade name; an order for destruction of dies, blocks, transfer labels and any other material bearing the impugned trade name and for rendition of accounts. (2) According to the allegations in the plaint, the business of selling Sarees as 'Kala Niketan' was started by Shrimati Momi Devi at 2343/2, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, on April 7, 1957. In April 1958, she took her two sons, Shambhoo Nath Khanna and Krishan Lal Khanna, in partnership with her in the said business. Shambhoo Nath Khanna retired from the firm with effect from June 15, 1966. Shrimati Momi Devi also retired with effect from 1, 1972 after assigning her share and in...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi Vs. Indian Institut ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Del)401; ILR1981Delhi555; [1982]134ITR23(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) On the application of the Commissioner of Income-fax, the following question has been referred to us for our decision: 'Whether on the facts and on the circumstances of the case the assessed was entitled to the benefit of section 80O of the income-tax Act.' The assessed, M/s. Indian Institute of Public Opinion Co. Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement on January 1, 1967 with Roper Public Opinion Research Centre of the United States of America under which the Indian Institute had to furnish the American Centre, from time to time, with its know-how on measurement of public opinion and research in consideration of a payment of Us $ 375 per quarter and expenses. The details of this agreement are not relevant for our present purpose. It is sufficient to say that under clause 6 of the agreement, it was to remain in force for a period of 12 months. The clause, however, provided that the agreement 'thereafter shall remain in force until determination at any time by three ...
Dharambir Alias Jonni Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: 1981(3)DRJ82
(1) The appellant was tried under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . for the alleged murder of Baldev Raj of village Mundka. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . by an Additional Sessions Judge. Against his conviction and sentence the appellant filed this appeal in the High Court. The appellant was not arrested at the spot. He was, however, arrested on 26-11-77 from Company Bagh opposite Delhi Railway Station. The alleged incident took place on the night between 17th and 18th November 1977. At that time of arrest he had some old injuries on both of his hands. He was got medically examined. According to the prosecution, during the course of interrogation of the appellant by the police the accused made a disclosure statement, inter alia, saying that during the scuffle with the deceased his shirt and vest were torn and the deceased bit his thumb, as a result of which he i.e. appellant sustained injuries due to tooth bite and h...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shail Agencies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ80; ILR1981Delhi607
(1) The agreement was signed by the defendant but the plaintiff did not sign it even though the contract was in his custody. The Corporation suggested a revised draft agreement to which the defendant did not agree Howevre, during the pendency of the petition filed by the defendant under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the Commissiener, Municipal Corporation, signed the contract. The questions which arose for decision were (1) whether the contract was valid and (2) whether it could be ratified. (2) Held that: After referring to Sections 201 and 203 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act it was held that every contract entered into by the Commissioner, the common seal of the Corporation has to be affixed. It has to be signed by the Commissioner or a person duly authorised by him. The common seal of the Corporation has to be affixed in the presence of a member of the Standing Committee who shall sign the contract in token that the same was sealed in his presence. Then the document has ...
Kailash Wanti Vs. Om Dutt
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT421
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The suit property was owned by Salamat Jan. After her death it devolved upon her son Mohd. Naqi, .who is alleged to have sold this property to 0m Dutt, respondent in this appeal, 0m Dutt respondent filed an eviction petition against his tenant Des Raj on grounds covered by Section 14(i)(e) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. The additional Controller passed the order of eviction on 7-3-1979. He filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, but it was dismissed on 1 1-3-1981. The second appeal was also dismissed. (2) Shrimati Kailash Wanti who has not been a party to the eviction proceedings has filed this appeal Along with an application for leave to appeal. She alleged that the suit property was under the tenancy of Kesar Mal and Des Raj tenants that they were joint tenants/co-tenants, that after the death of Kesar Mal, she being the daughter, one of the heirs, was entitled to inherit tenancy rights. She further stated that she was not made a party to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »