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.
issac Joti Sen Vs. Sunita Sen
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT424; 1982(3)DRJ212
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') challanges the judgment and order dated 27th Novombar 1980 of the Guardian judge holding that the rsspondent was entitled to the custody of the minor but dismissing her application for her appointment or declaration as guardian of the minor. Briafly the facts arc that the appellant and the respondent were married according to Christian Rites at Chirst Church, I-Butler Road, Delhi on 16th June 1976. A female child was born out of said wedlock on 29th May, 1977. Her name is Leena Priti Sen. She was born at St. Stephen Hospital, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The respondent lived with the appellant till June, 1978. It is alleged that she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the appellant and the child was snatched from her with the result that she had to leave alone the matrimonial home and to take shelter with her parents. On 19th September, 1978 the respondent filed the p...
S. Kuldip Singh Johar Vs. V.D. Narang
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi285; 21(1982)DLT389; 1982(3)DRJ203; 1982RLR310
(1) The landlord gave a notice of demand dated 16th July, 1972, received by the tenant on 23.7.1972, claiming arrears of rent from 15th May, 1973 to 14th July 1973 at the rate of Rs. 175 per month. The month of tenancy was from 15th day of the month to 14th day of the month following. The tenant paid the rent for the period : FROM15.6.73 to 14.7.73 by cheque dt. 17.8.73 from 15 7 73 to 14.8.7 by cheque dt. 15.9.73 from 158.73to 14.9.73 by cheque dt. 14.10.73 from 15.9.73 to 14.10.73 by M.O. on 19.11.73 (2) The landlord filed on 4.10.1973 the eviction petition pleading that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 15 6.73. The Additional Rent Controller passed the eviction order holding as follows :- BYnotice Ex.A.W 2/2 the respondent was called upon to pay arrears of rent we.f. 15.5.73 up to date within aperiod of 2 months. Notice is dated 16 7.73 and it appears to have been served on the respondent on or before 23 7.73. in view of the reply of the respondent A W. 2/3 it is very much appa...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Kailash Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT369; 1982RLR299
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the-Act') challenges the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 5.3.1981 dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and consequently passing an order of eviction against her under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. (2) The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on 11.12.1979. Summons in the ordinary manner as well as by registered A.D. post were ordered to be issued. Summons sent to the petitioner through process server upon her on 4.1.1980. Another summons was sent by registered A.D. post under postal receipt No.5304 dated 4.1.1980. The petitioner filed an application for leave to detend on 12.5.1980 and another application under Section 4 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend on 3.12.1980. The petitioner had also filed a...
Ramjilal Shivhare Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD244(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the assessee, Shri Ramjilal Shivhare of Morena, an individual, directed against the consolidated order of the AAC, Gwalior Range, Gwalior, dated 25-8-1980, which have been consolidated, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. The years of assessment involved are 1965-66 to 1970-71, 1973-74 and 1974-75.2. The ITO had completed the original assessments of the assessee for the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71, on 26-6-1971, with the following dates of the filing of the returns for those years:Assessment year Date of filing of return1966-67 20-3-1971 3. It appears that the business and the residential premises of the assessee were searched under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on 10-2-1974. Thereafter, the assessee on 20-3-1974, filed the original return for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1965-66 and revised returns for the assessment years 1...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Uppal Engineering Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi425; 21(1982)DLT457; ILR1982Delhi713
Leila Seth, J.(1) The short point in issue in this appeal is the seope of seruitiny of a speaking award. Does the fact that the arbitrator has given a speaking award enlarge the function of the court and permit it to examine the reasons, as a court of appeal, reviewing their 'reasonableness'? In a detailed judgment delivered by us on 24th February, 1982 in Delhi Development Authority v. M/s. at Karma F.A.O. (O.S.) 142 of 1979(1), we have held not. (2) Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 prescribes the grounds on which an award can be set aside. The fact that an award is a reasoned award does not extend or change the Arbitration Act or law. If the error is apparent on the face of the award, it can be set aside. Naturally in a speaking award the reasons are apparent on the face of it. thereforee, if these reasons are based on any legal preposition which is erroneous, the award can be set aside. (3) The respondent M/s. Uppal Engineering Construction Co. (in short 'the contractor') ent...
Jamil Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT40
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The parents of Kumari Geeta, the proiecutrix, are sweepers. According to the prosecution they used to work in a part of the locality of Gali Takia Razan, Sheesh Mahal, Teliwara, situated on Shivaji Road, Delhi. The prosecutrix used to help them. One of thhouses falling in that locality bearing No. 1993-94/29 is owned by the appellant's father. Jamil, the appellant herein, used to reside with his parents in the first floor of that house. (2) It is the prosecution case that on 23rd January, 1979, at about 5.30 p.m. Geeta aged 13 years, was cleaning the latrines in the ground floor of that house. When she had completed her work there, Jamil asked her to clean a room on the first floor. At his bidding she went upstairs to the room where Jamil followed her. He bolted the door from inside, took off his pants, laid her on the ground, untied her Salwar and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Thereafter, he went downstairs and ran away. In that unlawful act...
R. Ramalingam and Another Vs. P.R. Thakur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi486
1. This petition under art. 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated January 25, 1982, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal whereby it had issued notice to Shri R. Ramalingam, Deputy Manager of the Insurance company, as to why an action for contempt should not be taken against him. 2. I had directed the learned Tribunal to submit a report which is on record. It appears from the report that the matter was adjourned from time to time for compromise. Finally, the Tribunal directed the administrative officer of the insurance company to appear before it with the records relating to the compromise to find the stage of the compromise. The administrative officer was directed to appear on October 23, 1981. On the said date, the Tribunal was on leave and, thereforee, the case could not be taken up. Again by order dated January 7, 1981, similar directions were given to the administrative officer to appear on January 25, 1982. On January 25, 1982., the counsel for the i...
Cycle Equipments (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi94; 21(1982)DLT445; ILR1982Delhi728; 1982RLR372
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The controversy in this Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the writ petition of the petitioners (being Civil Writ Petition No. 1284/79) lie in a narrow compass. Shorn of superfluous details, the facts germane to the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant M/s. Cycle Equipments (P) Ltd. are running factory for manufacturing free wheels of cycles in Kalkaji Industrial Estate, the factory being located in premises No. 8 Kalkaji, New Delhi. The requisite license for running the said factory was .initially granted to the petitioners under Section 416 read with Section 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 1960-61. Thereafter, it was renewed from year to year up to 31st March, 1979. The appellants applied for renewal of the license as usual for the year 1979-80. However, the respondent-Corporation vide their notice dated 4th August, 1979, called upon the ...
Bimla Dewan Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1095; 21(1982)DLT341; 1982(3)DRJ219
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) A Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been moved by the petitioner in connection with the detention of her husband under the National Security Act, 1980. It is claimed that the detention order is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, mala fide and a colourable exercise of power for ulterior and collateral reasons. The detention is dated 25th Sept. 1981 and the grounds have been also been annexed to the petition. According to the petitioner, her husband has been cobducting a business of running an eating house known as 'Kamal Restaurant' the police officials in the locality have been seeking free entertainment and demanding gratification which the detenu has denied) thereforee, the police official have allegedly registered a number of false cases against him, but the deteue has always been acquitted or discharged in all of those cases.(2) It is also submitted that the name of the detenu was included in the Surveillance Register and a history she...
R. Ramalingam, Etc. Vs. P.R. Thakur, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas393(Delhi); 21(1982)DLT430; 1982(3)DRJ447
N.N. Goswami, J. (1) Respondent No. 2 had filed claim against respdts. 3, 4 and petitioner (Tns. Co.). Matter was adjourned from time to time for compromise. Finally Tribunal asked Administrative Officer (A.0.) of Ins. Co. to appear before it with compromise records. On 25-2-82, Counsel of Ins Co. told Court that he had communicated order of the Tribunal to Dy. Managec of Ins. Co, but he was not present. The Tribunal issued notice under 0. 16 R. 12. Cpg to Deputy Manager for 28-1-82. He challenged this by petition u/Art. 227.(2) It was held, Order 16 Rule 12 provides for the enforcement of the summons issued to a witness to attend the court or to produce documents and for punishing disobedience of the order. There is no scope for initiating contempt proceedings for the failure to carry out such orders. This rule in terms talks of a witness and not the party. If a party deliberately or otherwise chooses not to appear, the resort cannot be had to this rule. In Civil matters appearance of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »