Delhi Court March 1982 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.
Oudh Ram and Others Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1656; 22(1982)DLT20
1. Shri Oudh Ram, Ram Narain Vijay Pal, Videshi and Samarjit, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 176/81, Sh. Toofani, appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. 187/81 and Sh. Shiv Poojan, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 198/81 along with one Birbal have been convicted of an offence under S. 395/149, Penal Code, by an Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 21st August, 1981. Toofani, appellant, has also been convicted of an offence under S. 397, Penal Code, for having stabbed one Rattan Chand with a chhuri with which he was armed at the time of commission of dacoity. All of them have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each for offence under S. 395 read with S. 149, Penal Code. Further Toofani has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 100/- for offence under S. 397, Penal Code. However, both the substantive sentences awarded to him have been made to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved all of them excepting...
Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT158
Leila Seth, J.(1) This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th November, 1973 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. C. Misra.(2) As a consequence of the partition of the Indian sub-continent into India and Pakistan in 1947 a large scale upheaval of persons, properties and emotions took place. This resulted in persons moving and being evacuated from Pakistan to India and vice versa. It also meant that these displaced persons had to be rehabilitated and compensated for the properties left behind. It was a colossal task. It was taken on by the Custodian of Evacuee property and the government.(3) The appellant. Northern India Paint, Colour & Varnish Company (Private) Ltd. was such a displaced person. On 20th June, 1948, the Custodian of Evacuee property, New Delhi executed a lease deed in favor of the appellant. This pertained to an industrial concern styled as Ismail Lace Mills situated at No. I, Canal Road, The lease was to take effect from 12th May, 1948 and the ...
Government Employees S. Co-operative. H.B. Society Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi362; 22(1982)DLT147; 1982(3)DRJ446
Avadh Behari, J. (1) Appellant Society owned certain lands. Govt. also allotted to it some lands. Govt. then by notification u/s. 4 of L.A. Act acquired all their lands. Then in March, 58, Govt. denotified their 28.15 acres which included 12 bids was (8+4) in dispute. On 6-11-58, Govt. issued notification u/s. 4 about 31.72 acres and this included said 8+4 biswas. Then notification u/s. 6, 7 was issued in respect of portion of land on 18-10-63 and another declaration u/s. 6, 7 was made on 3-9-64 about some more land which included said 8+4 biswas. Appellant filed writ on 3-3-65 against notifications of 6-1 1-58 and 3-9-64. Single Judge dismissed the writ and Society filed L.P.A. (2) It was held that the Govt. had a right to issue notification on 5-11-58 after notification of 8-3-57 .had been declared invalid. Invalidity arose as notification claimed urgency. No infirmity attached to notification of 6-11-58. Notifications u/s. 6, 7 were perfectly valid as these were issued after having ...
Bhagwat Pershad Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT482
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) In this second appeal by the tenant the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Tribunal, on an appeal having been filed by the respondent No. I-landlady, is being assailed. (2) Respondent No. I (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlady' is the owner of premises No. 21 Ashoka Park, Rohtak Road, Delhi. The appellant -herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') was admittedly a tenant of these premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 320.00 . The landlady filed a petition for eviction under clauses (a), (b), (C) and (h) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The case of the landlady was that, on the facts alleged in the petition, she was entitled to an order of eviction being passed against the tenant under all of the above clauses. According to her the tenant had failed to pay rent despite notice of demand having been issued ; the premises have been sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession to responde...
Ashgar Ali Vs. Mohd. Taqi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT63; 1982(3)DRJ248; 1982RLR425
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision by the plaintiff under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.3.1981 of the Subordinate Judge Delhi holding that the suit of the petitioner has abated.(2) Briefly the facts are that on 5.6.1967 the plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the seven defendants namley, Mohd. Taqi, Mohd. Naqi, Munnan, Mashuq Ali, Abdur Razzaq and Municipal Corporation of Delhi alleging that he had been in occupation of the ground floor of house No. 2080, Mohalla Rodgran, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi since 1948, that initially he 249 was atenant under the Custodian of Evanuee Property New Delhi but later on, when the property was transferred to the Municipal Corporattion of Delhi, became a tenant under the Corporation on a monthly rent of Rs. 6.00 , that on 21.8.1665 the defendants illegally and forcibly entered and took possession of the house along with articles worth about Rs. 7000.00 , that defendants No. I to 4 ille...
Duli Chand Vs. Jagmander Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT57; 1982(3)DRJ250
Sultan Singh, J. (1) In this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24.4.1980 passing an order an order of eviction against him.(2) Briefly the facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction of the appellant under section 14(l)(b) of the Act from shop No. 361 (Old No. 25-A) Azadpur, G.T. Road. Delhi. The ground of eviction pleaded in para 18 (a) of the application reads as follow: '18.(a) The tenant-respondent has sub-let the shop and parted with the possession of the said shop to M/s. Sh. Hira Lal, Sri Bhagwan illegally and without the consent of the petitioner after 9th day of June 1952. The petitioner is the owner/landlord of the shop in question.'(3) The appellant in reply stated as under : 'THATpara No. 18 (a) of the petition is denied as stated. There is no sub-letting or parting with the possession of the sho...
Premchand Gupta Vs. Moolchand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT3; 1983RLR522
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This appeal arises in connection with a Will (Ex. PI) alleged to have been executed on 12-6-1962 in favor of the appellant Prem Chand Gupta, by one Parbati Devi. The Will purports to bequeath the following properties : (1) half share inner portion in house No. 401, situated in Chitla Darwaza, Delhi, (2) one house double storey, bearing Municipal No. 33, Lal Kurti Chhota. Meerut Cantt., U.P. and (3) moveable properties. The Will is in English and is signed in Hindi and also bears her thumb marks. The testatrix stated in the Will that life is uncertain and she had become old and that her other legal heirs were her enemies and wanted to kill her. thereforee, she appointed the appellant Gupta as executor with the stipulation that after her death the said executor shall be the exclusive owner of the said properties entitled to sell, mortgage or transfer the said properties as legal heir of the testatrix and that all the ceremonies upon her death shall be performed by him.(2...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi Vs. Y.P. Punj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Del)293; [1983]140ITR578(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. In this application for reference under s. 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957, a reference is sought of the following question of law: '(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the adjustment in the balance-sheet as envisaged under Explanationn II(i)(b) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is not limited to only a debit balance of the profits & loss account thereby excluding the investment of Rs. 17,85,600 in the share of M/s. Pibco Ltd. from the assets of the company, M/s. Punj sons (P.) Ltd., while valuing its shares (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the balance-sheet of M/s Fedder Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Ltd., as drawn up on December 31, 1975, should be considered for the purpose of valuing the shares of the company which he acquired on March 29, 1975, and for which the valuation date is March 31, 1975, when the balance-sheet as on December 31, 1974...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi Vs. Brij Raj Punj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: [1983]140ITR574(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This application under s. 27(3) of the W. T. Act, 1957, seeks a reference on the following question of law: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the balance-sheet of M/s. Fodders Lloyd Corporation (P.) Ltd., as drawn up on December 31, 1975, should be considered for the purposes of valuating the shares of the company, which be acquired on March 29, 1975, and for which the valuation dates is March 31, 1975, when the balance-sheet as on December 31, 1974, already exists and thereby contravening the provisions of Explanationn I of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?' 2. This questions is the only question raised in this application, but there are a number of other applications where the questions is raised along with some other question, the Tribunal main judgment being in this case, the order in this case will also have effect on the other cases concerning this particular question. 3. The fact of the case...
Kanjimal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Del)1; [1982]138ITR391(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. This reference raises a somewhat unusual problem. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court as many as five questions of law as against seven proposed by the assessed. It is necessary to set out the facts at length to appreciate the contentions that arise in the case. 2. The assessed-applicant, M/s. Kanji Mal & Sons, was a firm consisting of three partners, Ram Ratan Dass, Parshotam Dass and Lachhman Dass. It is said that Ram Ratan Dass and Parshotam Dass have since died and the firm has been dissolved. We are concerned in this reference with its assessment for the assessment year 1948-49. It was originally assessed as a registered firm under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, for this assessment year. The assessment was completed on 29th March, 1951, by the Income-tax Officer (ITO), 1st Contractors Circle, New Delhi. The address of the firm is given in the assessment order as M/s. Kanji Mal & Sons, Jewellers, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The firm was running a je...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »