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.
Shri Ish Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi567; 1982(2)SLJ220(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) The petitioner Ish Kumar, was at relevant time an Assistant/Deputy Director in the Central Water and Power Commission (CWPC).The Writ petition relates to an attempt on the part of the respondents to recover from the petitioner the House Rent Allowance (HRA) accorded to him in respect of two periods: (1) from 1-10-1963 to 3-9-1966 and (2) from 10-10-1969 to 31-12-1970 in the following circumstances. (2) On 1-10-1963 the petitioner claimed to have taken on rent a portion of the house bearing No. Xi 11606, Faiz Gani, Darya Ganj, Delhi from his father Ch. Bhagwan Dass. an advocate, at a rent of Rs. 135 per month. On 4-11-1963 he intimated this fact to the administrative section of the Cwpc and requested that necessary authorisation to enable him to draw Hra might be obtained. In this intimation dated 4-11-1963 he stated that he was paying a rent of Rs. 135 p.m. to his father and that he was occupying a portion of the house from October, 1963. The plan of the premises...
Brij Lal Gautam Vs. Parbati Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi314a; 22(1982)DLT201
Sultan Singh, J.1. This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 26th August 1981 directing him to deposit all arrears of rent from 1st November 1974 up to date at Rs 80/- per month within one month from the date of the said order and if the rent is deposited he would be deemed to have taken benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and in default order of eviction would be deemed to have been passed against him. The Additional Controller by his judgment and order dated 19th August, 1980 had directed the appellant to deposit rent with effect from 1st May, 1980 at Rs. 80/- per month and dismissed the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.2. Briefly the facts are that Parbati Devi respondent claimed eviction of the appellant, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act alleging that he has been a tenant under her since 1...
Khushbir Singh Vs. Ajaib Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT338; 1982RLR534
Snltan Singh, J.(1) The respondent filed an application against the appellant for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that the appellant neither paid nor tendered any arrears of rent in spite of service of a notice of demand. The Additional Rent Controller on 2-4-1974 passed an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act but further directing that if the appellant deposits the arrears of rent from 1-7-1970 up to date within one month at the rate of RS.IOO.00 per month, the eviction petition would fail and he would be deemed to have enjoyed the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal but the appeal being barred by time was dismissed on 19-8-1976. The appellant filed second appeal on 18-9-1976 together with the certified copy of the Tribunal's order dated 19-8-1976. This appeal was admitted on 20-9-1976. The certified copy of the Controlle...
Satish Chander Vs. Shiv Dutt and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT64; 1982RLR354
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) Respondents own suit premises. It was let out to petititioner in Sep., 69. At that time Shiv Dutt was a clerk in Cpwd, N. Delhi while Prem Nath was in Madhya Pradesh. Former was occupying Govt. accommodation. Within 2 years the tenant sued him for fixation of Standard rent. Soon after respdts. sued him for eviction which case dragged on till 1976 when respdts. withdrew the same with permission to file afresh. They then filed the instant case on 23.7.77 alleging that they had bought the premises from the Min. of Rehabilitation. It was residential and was in a residential area and was let out to the tenant for residential purposes only; that Respdt. 1 had been transferred to Nepal and lost Govt. accommodation and on return has been refused Govt. accommodation as he owns tenanted premises and is living with a relation and badly needs tenanted premises. Tenant was granted leave to defend contending that premises were let to him for office-cum- residential purposes an...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. Rohtak Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Del)151; [1982]138ITR195(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. These cross-references under the I.T. Act, 1961 (the 'Act', for short), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the assessed, raise inter-connected questions for decision. The references arise out of the assessments of Rohtak Textile Mills for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1965-66, the relevant previous years being the preceding financial years. 2. The assessed-company now know as Rohtak Textile Mills, was previously known as South Punjab Electricity Corporation Ltd. and was running certain electricity undertakings. The disputes in these references arise as a result of the take-over of some of these undertakings by the Punjab state. Electricity Board (PSEB), on the expiry of the period of their licenses, under the provision of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act VII of 1910). 3. The assessed's electricity undertakings at Hansi, Bhiwani and Hissar were taken over by the PSEB in the financial year 1962-63. The ITO, while completing the assessment for...
R.P. Sablok Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT364; 1982(3)DRJ225
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge passed on 2nd September, 1981, whereby in exercise of revisional jurisdiction he set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint and held that the accused-petitioner herein, R. P. Sablok was liable to be summoned for an offence under S. 408 of the Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that prima facie petitioner herein who is a Manager of Kirti Nagar Branch of Syndicate Bank had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 24000/- which had been deposited by respondent No. 1 in a fixed deposit in the said Bank. 2. The finding of the Additional Sessions Judge being assailed is 'it is proved on the record that the petitioner had deposited the money for a fixed time and it was the duty of the respondent to pay back that amount after the expiry of the period of the fixed deposit. It is also proved that the report of the police was obtained by the learned Magistrate which has corroborated the sta...
Gobind Pershad Jagdish Pershad Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi319; 22(1982)DLT99; 1982(3)DRJ199; 1982RLR340
(1) Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, S.171 Section 171(4) is an 'existing law' within the meaning of clause(5) of Article 31 of the constitution. By its mere extension to the area of JNew Delhi Municipal Committee by a notification issued on June 3, 1958 it does not become a new law. Passages in Cannaaght Place, Gonnaught Circus and radial roads are 'public streets:...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rohtak Textiles Mills Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi68
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) These cross-references under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act', for short) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the assessed raise inter-connected questions for decision. The references arise out of the assessments of Rohtak Textile Mills for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1965-66, the relevant previous years being the preceding financial years.(2) The assessed company, now known as Rohtak Textile Mills, was previously known as South Punjab Electricity Corporation Ltd. and was running certain electricity undertakings. The disputes in these references arise as a result of the take-over of some of the these undertakings by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), on the expiry of the period of their licenses, under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act Vii of 1910).(3) The assessed's electricity undertakings at Hansi Bhiwani and Hissar were taken over by the Pseb in the financial year 1962-63. The Income-tax Officer (ITO). w...
Kaushalya Singha Vs. Anil Kumar Singha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi161
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) Mrs. Kaushalya Singha, petitioner was married to Lt. Col. Anil Kumar Singha (respondent) according to Christian rites. The marriage took place on 18th September, 1953 at Bombay. No children were born out of the said wedlock. (2) Petitioner, brought a petition under Section 22 read with Section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty, desertion, adultery and bigamy. She also brought an application under Section 36 of the Act for grant of maintenance. Both the applications are contested by the respondent. (3) On 30th January, 1982, the present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'Code') was brought by the petitioner for transfer of both the petitions for judicial separation and the one for grant of maintenance to the court of District Judge, Delhi. The reasons given for such prayer for transfer are briefly stated as follows : Section 23 of the Act...
Virendra Dresses Vs. Varindra Garments
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi482; 21(1982)DLT472; 1982RLR538
Sultan Singh, J.(1) Virendra Dresses, plaintiff/appellants challenge the judgment and order dt. 21-7-1981 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi refusing to issue a temporary injunction restraining the respondent/ defendant namely Varindra Garments from adopting the said trade name in relation to ready made garments business or any other allied business amounting to passing off and from giving an impression to the trade and public that the defendant is associated with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction for passing off and rendition of accounts against the defendant alleging that the plaintiffs constituted a partnership firm, manufacturing and dealing in all kinds of readymade garments at Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi under the name and style of Virendra Dresses since August, 1978, that their sales in 1978 were to the tune of Rs.50,000.00 and in 1980-81 the gross sales rose to Rs. 2,50,000.00 , that they adopted their trade name Virendra Dresses from...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »