Delhi Court August 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.
i.C. Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ65; 1982RLR773
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) In this petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, Shri I.G. Gupta, Sole Proprietor of M/s. A.R. Builders, Ashok Vihar, Phase It, Delhi, has sought that the original arbitration agreement entered into between the parties be filed in the Court and the disputes arising out of contract bearing No. 2/EE/PWD XV/80-81, for 'construction of Government Higher Secondary School at Gulabi Bagh, Phase Ii, Delhi' be referred to arbitration.(2) The Union of India, respondent herein, has not disputed the execution of the contract. It also does not dispute that the agreement contained an arbitration clause. However, its case is that the contract was rescinded on 10th September, 1981, as the contractor (petitioner herein) did not execute the work in accordance with the terms of the contract.(3) According to the petitioner, the disputes arising out of the contract which are required to be adjudicated upon by the Arbitration clause are eight in number. Those have been detai...
Ram Singh Vs. Nathi Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi114; 23(1983)DLT35; 1983(4)DRJ20; 1982RLR774
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The question in this second appeal is whether the suit for possession on the basis of title is maintainable against the heirs and legal representatives of a statutory tenant or such a suit is barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) Briefly the facts are that one Shri Beni Pershad Soni, was owner of the house bearing Municipal No. 8443-45/XV Arya Nagar, Paharganj, Delhi. Sita Ram was his tenant in one room and a verandah on the ground floor. The tenant was in arrears of rent, and had sublet the premises without his consent. A suit for ejectment under Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1952') was filed against him on 31st May, 1957. A decree for eviction was passed on 14th January, 1958 and a period of one year was granted for vacation of the premises.(3) The said house was declared as Slum Area within the meaning of Section 3 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 (here...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Rewari Electric Supply a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: [1982]138ITR473(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. The Rewari Electric Supply & General Industries, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed'), is a limited company. The present reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is a consolidated reference for the three assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 and raises a somewhat interesting question regarding the deductibility of the interest paid by the assessed-company. The relevant previous years with which we are concerned are the financial years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. The reference arises in the following circumstances. 2. The assessed-company, right from 1947, was having two activities : (1) a business in the manufacture and sale of aluminium utensils (metal business); and (2) the running of an electricity undertaking at Rewari (electricity business). The assessed had borrowed considerable sums of money from the Upper India Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Upper India') and its managing agents. Such borrowings as on March 31, 194...
Mohd. Akil Vs. R.K. Baweja, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: [1982(45)FLR363]; ILR1983Delhi814; 1983RLR300
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The respondent Farid Ahmed alleged that he had been in the employment of Haji Mohd. Akil, a blacksmith from 1957. For the first three years he was paid at Rs. 45 p.m. and then at Rs. 90 per month. The petitioner paid him in all-an amount of Rs. 1036 and there remained a balance of Rs. 6524 of unpaid wages for the period ending 31-5-1967. When the respondent demanded this money in June, 1967, the petitioner terminated his service on or about 10-6-1967 without any show cause notice. He filed a claim on 19-10-1967 before the Conciliation Officer alleging wrongful termination of service. The case was discussed and the parties arrived on 28-11-1967 at the following agreement : (i) The management agree to re-instate the workman with immediate effect on the existing terms and conditions. (ii) 50% wages shall be paid for the period workman remained unemployed. (iii) The workman will be paid earned wages if due at the existing terms. (2) On the basis of this settlement the resp...
Jai Kishan Vs. Delhi Transport Undertaking
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT63
Avadh Behart Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a case of a probationer. The petitioner Jai Kishan was employed by the respondent Delhi Transport Undertaking CDTU) as a re- tainer crew conductor on 25th February, 1966. After some time he was appointed as a conductor on probation for a period of one year by letter dated 2-11-1966. On the expiry of one year his period of probation was extended by another year. His services were terminated with effect from 31st October, 1968 by letter dated 20/30th October, 1968. (2) The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The dispute was referred to the industrial tribunal on 30th September, 1969. The following were the terms of reference ; '(1) Whether the termination of services of Jai Kishan, Conductor, is illegal and j or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled?' (3) The tribunal made the award on 16th July, 1970. It held that the order of termination of the petitioner's services was proper and that he was not entitled to any relief. (4) On 2-1...
Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. Kishan Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi250
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This suit by two brothers claiming a declaration in respect of immoveable properties and for possession of a part thereof and recovery of damages mesne profits in respect of the use and occupation of a part of it, inter alia, raises an interesting question as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which a limited estate, held by a Hindu widow, may mature into an absolute estate by virtue of the provision of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.(2) The facts and circumstances leading to the suit are, by and large, beyond controversy. One Umrao Singh, who held joint Hindu family properties as the sole surviving coparcener, executed a Will on January 9, 1927, duly registered on January 27, 1927, in terms whereof he bequeathed one of the properties absolutely in favor of Kalawati, widow of his pre-deceased son, Onkar Prasad, and created two successive life estates in respect of other properties, one in favor of Kalawati aforesaid, and the other in fav...
Hemant Bahadur Lama Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2227; 1983(1)Crimes932; 23(1983)DLT5; 1982(10)ELT872(Del)
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) By this writ petition mandamus is sought for a direction directing the Collector of Customs, respondents to return Mercedez Benz Car No. BA.A-2976 to the petitioner. (2) On 3rd/4th August, 1979, 95 Kilograms of Hashish and Mercedez Car was seized by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The car was driven by one Nepali National Pabitra N. Rana who had stated that he had transported Hashish in the car. Since it was used for smuggling it was liable for confiscation; the car was seized. On 17-1-1980 notice was issued to Rana asking him to show cause as to why the Hashish and the Car be not confiscated. A criminal complaint was also filed on 6-2-1981 under Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962 (to be called the Act). Rana pleaded guilty on 19-2-1981 and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. (3) The petitioner has come to this court in the present petition on the allegation that he had asked the Collector of Customs by his communication of April and...
Syed Moosa Emami Vs. Sunil Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1982
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas212(Delhi); 22(1982)DLT50; 1982RLR724
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This revision is directed against an order of trial court dt. 5.12.81 whereby the learned trial Court accepted an application filed on behalf the respondents for leave to appear and contest the suit purporting to have been filed under the provisions of Order 37 of the C.P.C. (2) The plaintiff had filed a suit purporting to be under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code for the recovery of Rs. 10,000.00 allegedly on the basis of two cheques. (3) The case of the plaintiff is that he is permanent resident of Iran and has come to India for treatment of his eyes. During the stay in Delhi, the planintiff came into contact with deft. No 2 and became his close friend. It was stated in the plaint that deft. No. 1 is the son of deft. No. 2. It was further stated that deft No. I requested the plaintiff to give some friendly loan as he has run short of some money in transaction of business. It was further averred that the plaintiff in good faith and being a friend of deft. No...
R. Nanabhoy Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1982
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas454(Delhi); 1983(4)DRJ309
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The petitioner is a reputed firm of the Cost Auditors with the standing of about 40 years. The Company Law Board by its decision dated 18-11-1980 took the following decision imposing restrictions on number of cost audits that can be entrusted to a Cost Auditor/a firm of Cost Auditors: 'THEnumber of Cost audits to be allowed per cost auditor per annum should be restricted to 30 instead of 20 as suggested by the Council. Since cost audit is ordered for a product manufactured by a company, the number of audits should be reckoned with reference to each product for which a report is submitted. Further, if the product is manufactured in more than one unit of a company, the report in respect of each unit will be treated as 'one Cost Audit' for the purpose of reckoning the above limit. The above limit will be made applicable from the calendar year 1-1 1981 and will apply to those units whose year ending falls within the period.'The said decision of the Company Law Board was pu...
Ajit Pershad Vs. Nirmal Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT51; 1982RLR732
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The appellant-tenant in this 2nd appeal u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Act') challenged the Judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dt. 4.5.81 partly allowing his appeal directing the respondant landlord to restore the amenity of electricity but confirming the order of the Additional Controller dated 23.9.80 dismissing his petition u/s 45 of the Act with respect to other amenities. (2) Briefly the facts are that the appellant Ajit Pershad Jain was inducted as tenant in 1972 in a portion of the property, bearing Municipal No. X-264, Jain Mandir Gali No. 3, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar. The appellant alleges that he has been a tenant with respect to one room besides common user of laterine, bath room, stair case and open roof on the floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 29.00 inclusive of electricity and water charges, that the respondent has not been granting rent receipts since the inception of the tenancy, and has also been harassing to enhan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »