Delhi Court May 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.
Aggarwal Hardware Works Private Limited Vs. C.V.S. Vasantha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT230
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 27th March, 1981 passed by learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi reviewing his earlier order dated 4th November, 1980. By the impugned order passed on 27th March, 1981, the learned Rent Control Tribunal reviewed its earlier order of remand to the trial court for recording evidence and determination of the question as to whether the permission under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act was accorded in accordance with law and dismissed the appeal. (2) The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent had let out the property in dispute to the appellant after obtaining permission of the trial court under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to 'Act') for a period of two years. After the expiry of period of two years, respondent put in application for delivery of possession. On this application, a notice was sent to the appellant who in reply to the said application asserted that the pr...
Daulat Ram Mehnidratta Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi470; 1983(4)DRJ66; 1983RLR116
Sachar, J.(1) This full bench has been constituted to resolve the conflict between two division bench judgments of this court namely Prof. Balraj Madhok & Others v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies & others, I.L.R. 1974 (2) Delhi 684 and S.B. Lall& another v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies New Delhi & another, I.L.R. 1977 (2) Delhi 164. The question that calls for determination is to the exact impact and the effect of Rule 25(1 )(c) read with Rule 25(2) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter to be called as the Rules).(2) The petitioner applied for and became a member of Dera lsmail Khan Cooperative House Building Society in 1952. In 1954 the petitioner purchased a house at B-17/A-9, Krishan Nagar, Delhi. In 1955 the petitioner purchased 4 plots from M/s. Nirmal Finance India Private Ltd. This land along with certain other lands was acquired and a Preet Nagar Cooperative House Building Society was formed and the petitioner became a member of the said Socie...
Kishan Kapur Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi661
Sachar, J. (1) The dispute in the present batch of petitions being C.W. 5911982, 18411982 & 18311982 which will all be disposed of by common judgment relate to the, impact on seniority and consequently on further promotion of the higher posts in the Railways. This is the result of the order of 4-1-1982 issued by the President of India by which certain modification has been made in the earlier order of 15-2-1960 issued by the President. (2) The broad question which has been convassed and has to bs decided by us is whether it was permissible for the Presi- dent to review and modify the decision taken 2 decades back and even if permissible whether there was any fustsSication in law for reviewing the same and reopening the matters whidi had beer: settled long time back more especially by the imple- inentation and CQjitinuous application of the earlier principles laid down in 15-2-1960 circular. (3) Before dealing with the matter in detail it will be apt to reproduce the relevant portions o...
Mangat Ram Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2044; 22(1982)DLT263; 1982RLR641
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) After having maintained the conviction of the appellant Mangat Ram in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1975 vide and Judgment passed on 26th March, 1982 in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1975, I had considered it appropriate to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence. (2) Mr. D.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Z. A. Khalidi, learned counsel for the State in their usual forth right manner, have placed before me the rival contentions. Mr. Sethi's submission is that there are special reasons in this case fur not sending the appellant to jail. Mr. Khalidi contested this proposition. He says that the appellant deserves no leniency and as such the sentence awarded to him by the Special Judge be maintained. (3) Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the minimum sentence prescribed (4) In support of his contention that there are special reasons in this case, Mr. Sethi submitted :- (1)that the appellant has undergone ...
Kiran Kapoor Vs. Surinder Kumar Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi543; 1982(3)DRJ329
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this common Judgment I propose to decide F.A.O. No. 244 of 1979 filed by Smt. Kiran Kapoor challenging the decree of divorce granted under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, in favor other husband Surinder Kumar Kapoor, respondent herein, and also the Gross-objections (C.M. 351 of 1980) filed by the husband urging that he is also entitled to the same relief on the other grounds which have been rejected by the trial Court.(2) Surinder Kumar Kapoor originally filed a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act locking judicial separation on 20th May, 1976. During the pendency of that petition on the amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') vide Act No. 68 of 1976, the petition was sought to be amended to one under section 13(l)(ia)(ib)(iii) of the Act. The amendment was allowed vide order dated 6th January, 1978. After trial, the petition has been granted on the ground that the wife has treated the husband with cruel...
Gul Mohd. Vs. Samar Jahan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi90; 1982(3)DRJ326; 1982RLR666
(1) A decree for dissolution of marriage passed by Sub Judge. The appeal was dismisled by the Additional Dist. Judge on the ground that it was not competent as the subordinate judge exercises powers of kazi under the Muslim Marriage Act.(2) Held It is true that under the Muslim Personal Law, matters of dissolution of marriage used to by decided be kazi but that does not mean that since kazi's jurisdiction is conferred on Subordinate Courts they alone can pass decree which is final and unassailable. The Act is to be applied by taking recourse to ordinary process of the courts. The civil judge while hearing the suit was exercising original civil jurisdiction and the proceedings culminated into a judgment followed by a decree. Under section 96 Civil Procedure Code an appeal lies from any decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction....
Satya Wati Vs. V.K. Shukla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT311
Soltan Singh, J.(1) The landlord in this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 18-8-1981 dismissing his application for eviction of the respondent on the ground of non payment of rent as mentioned in Section 14(l)(a)ofthe Act. (2) Briefly the facts are that the appellant on 21-10-1975 filed the application for eviction of the respondent alleging that he was her tenant in one room of property No. 5A/5 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi on a monthly rent of R8.150.00 as besides Rs. 20.00 fixed charges for water and electricity, that he has been in arrears since 5-10-1974, that he remitted two money orders ofRs.l50.00 each received on 6-2-1975 and 17-3-1975 and another money order for Rs. 300.00 , received on 17-5-1975, that notice of demand dated 9-8-1975 was sent by registered A.D. post as well as under certificate of posting, which was served on 16-8-1975...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iii Vs. V.K. Narendra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR418(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. Six petitions under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which raise interconnected questions have been instituted by the Commissioner of Income-tax claiming that questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The applications are - I.T.C. Nos. 75 of 1978, relating to the assessment year 1968-69, 76 of 1978 relating to the assessment year 1969-70, 307 of 1979 relating to the assessment year 1970-71, 306 of 1979 relating to the assessment year 1971-72, 36 of 1980 relating to the assessment year 1972-73 and 35 of 1980 relating to the assessment year 1973-74. 2. The question sought to be raised for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1969-70 is in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the reduction of Rs. 22,300 made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the income of the property known as Pratap Bhawan, 5, Mathura Road, New Delhi, by holding that the assessed was carry...
Nand Lal Patel Vs. Shiv Saran Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1982
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi913
G.C. Jain, J.(1) A plot of land measuring about 700 sq. yards, having supper-structure bearing municipal house Nos. 4161- 65, situate in Gali. Shahdara, Delhi, was purchased for Rs. 24,000 in the name of Shiv Saran Lal, Judgment-debtor, in the year 1953. On January 3, 1957, the said Judgment-debtor and the decree-holder entered into an agreement (Ex. P-1) (main file), evidencing that the said property was agreed to be purchased by both of them as co-owners; that after the agreement, new super-structure was, to be constructed on the said land of which also they would be co-owners in equal shares. After the purchase, the existing super-structure was demolished and Shiv Saran Lal commenced construction of three-storeyed building as per the plans etc. Shiv Saran Lal had spent Rs. 65,000.00 including his half share towards the price of the land while Nand Lal Patel had invested Rs. 34,000.00. The Super-structure sought to be constructed was likely to require about Rs. 80,000.00 for completi...
Ajit Singh Vs. Nand Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT22
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Ajit Singh, appellant challenges the judgment and order of the District Judge, Delhi dated 1st March, 1977 dismissing his application for the grant of Probate of the Will dated 22nd October, 1962 alleged to have been executed by his father Arjan Singh. (2) On 17th May, 1972 the appellant filed an application for the grant of Probate alleging that his father Arjan Singh had executed his last will and Testament on 22nd October, 1962 bequeathing Plot No. I-88A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and one Shop No. 119, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to him, that Arjan Singh died on 12th April, 1963, that the Will was attested by the witnesses. (3) Nand Singh, one of the brothers of the appellant in his written statement pleaded that his father never executed any Will during his life time, he died intestate on 12th April, 1963, that the said Will was a forged document, that in 1965 the appellant along with his mother and sister Kaushalaya Devi had filed a suit for declaration ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »