Delhi Court September 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
G.B. Kanuga Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi431
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner G.B. Kanuga entered the services of the Bank of Baroda Ltd. by an agreement for a period of two years from 14-4-1965 as a site engineer in Delhi. The formal agreement was executed on 9-12-1965. It provided that if the Managing Director, or any other official of the Bank for the time being in authority shall be of opinion (which shall be conclusive) that the site engineer has been guilty of inter alias gross misconduct or insubordination or by reason of any events (which may have happtened before or after he entered the Bank's service), it is undesirable to continue him in the service of the Bank. they shall be at liberty forthwith to determine this argeement. A letter was issued to him by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank placing him on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining. But he was confirmed on 14-10-1965. (2) The Bank then framed rules called 'the Bank of Baroda Officers Service Rules' in the year 1969. Upon nationalisati...
U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT105; 1983(12)ELT329(Del); ILR1982Delhi621
1. The petitioner, U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd., obtained an import license dated 31st May, 1966 to import Yanmar Power Tillers from Japan. The goods were then imported from Japan. These arrived at Calcutta on 12th August, 1966. The respondent Collector of Customs, charged customs duty on these goods @ 15% as prescribed in item No. 72(8) of the First Schedule to the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff (Customs Tariff). The petitioner paid Rs. 87,680/- on the total value of the goods of Rs. 5,84,533.35 p. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board by order dated 7th August, 1968 dismissed the appeal. From the appellate order a revision was filed before the Central Government. The revision was dismissed on 24th September, 1970. On 12th February, 1971 the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed challenging the decision of the authorities as regards the customs d...
Suresh Bala Vs. G.M.S. Bala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi230; 1983(4)DRJ53
Charaojit Talwar, J.(1) These two appeals have been filed by Smt. Suresh Bala challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage passed on 11th July, 1980, under section 13(i)(ib) ofthe Hindu Marriage Act (herein called 'the Act') in favor of her husband Major Gurmohinder Singh Bala. The finding that it was the appellant who had deserted her husband by leaving her matrimonial home on 5th January, 1973, and thereafter continued to live separately for a period of over two years immediately proceeding the filing of the petition by her husband, is sought to be reversed.(2) In the cross-objections filed by the husband the plea raised is that the appeals have become infructuous because of the husband's re-marriage and that in any case he was entitled to a decree under section 13(1)(a) on the ground of cruelty as well.(3) Before proceeding further it may be noted that the husband filed two separate petitions, first under section 10 of the Act on 20th September, 1973, seeking judicial separatio...
Rajinder Kumar Vs. Ravel Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi134; 23(1983)DLT20; 1986(4)DRJ46; 1982RLR806
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This is second appeal by the tenant is directed against the judgment dated 6-2-1931 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby his appeal was dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that he had failed to comply with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act inasmuch as he had deposited the rent for the month of April, 1977 on 16th May, 1977 while he was expected to deposit the same on or before 15th of May, 1977. The second ground being that the appeal filed by him against the order of the Additional Rent Controller was incompetent inasmuch as he had failed to implead cotenants within the period of limitation. (2) The respondent-landlord instituted a petition for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1) provisos (a), (c) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is not necessary to deal with clauses (c) and (j) because the same were decided against the landlord and were not pressed before the Rent Control Tribunal. During ...
Abbey Dass Vs. Murli Dhar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi975
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a petition under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner Mahant Abbey Dass is the landlord. The respondent Murli Dhar Sharma, is the tenant. The landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant in 1973. A decree for eviction was passed in favor of the landlord in respect of house No. 206 (old) situated in Haveli Haiderquli, Delhi. The tenant preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal The tenant brought a second appeal in this court. I heard that appeal. The appeal was compromised. The tenant made a statement on February 13, 1980 that his appeal be dismissed and that he may be granted one year's time to vacate the premises. He agreed in terms to deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord on or before February 13, 1981. His undertaking was recorded. The landlord agreed to give him one year time. So in terms of the agreement I dismissed the appeal and granted ti...
income-tax Officer Vs. R.K. Sawhney, J.L. Sawhney and
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD207(Delhi)
1. The question whether the assessees should be assessed under the head 'Income from house property' or under the head 'Income from other sources' may look simple but the answer is not easy to find especially in view of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), coupled with myriad of decisions. The difficulty is further aggravated by the inelegantly drafted documents bearing on the question. To understand the implications of the question and to find out an answer thereto, it is necessary to state the facts in detail.2. Shri Dewan Chand and Shri Badri Nath were joint lessees of a plot of land, measuring about 4,628 sq. yds., plot No. 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, under a registered perpetual lease deed dated 17-9-1937.Thereafter, the property came into the hands of Shri Prem Nath by a registered conveyance deed dated 16-5-1938. Shri Prem Nath constructed a dwelling house on the said plot and this property was treated as the property of the family of Shri Prem Nath of wh...
Sushil Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1964; 1983(4)DRJ7; 1982RLR729
ORDER1. This is an application for transfer of the case under S. 407 of the Criminal P.C. Sushil Kumar was being tried by the Court of Mr. S. M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge on a charge under section 302, I.P.C. The learned Judge recorded the entire evidence in this case. He heard the arguments of counsel for the prosecution. He heard the arguments of counsel for the accused in part. The arguments were not concluded on 23rd August, 1982 by counsel for the accused. He was to continue his remaining arguments on 30th August, 1982. The case was at that stage when the learned Sessions Judge on 26th August, 1982 passed an order transferring this case from the Court of Mr. S. M. Aggarwal to the Court of Mr. J. D. Kapur, Additional Sessions Judge. The following is the order made by him : 'In pursuance of Delhi High Court letter No. 11680/Ga/VI E. 2(a) 82 dated 20-7-82 the following Sessions cases pending in the Court of Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi are hereby withdra...
Rukmani Devi Vs. Shanti Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ35; 1982RLR813
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The petitioner, who was summoned as a witness challenge the order dated 25th May, 1982 of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi issuing non-bailable warrant against her for appearance in court and also show cause notice to her surety. Briefly the facts are that originally Smt. Rukmani Devi the petitioner filed the suit for possession and mesne profits on 18th May, 1970 against Hari Parkash defendant-respondent No 2 alleging that she was owner of property No : 2962, Kucha Maidas Bazar, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi and the defendant was in illegal possession of a room on second floor of the said property. The defendant pleaded that he was tenant under her in the said room on second floor. Smf. Rukmani Devi petitioner sold the property on 5th September, 1970 to Smt. Shanti Aggarwal. On an application being made the name of Smt. Shanti Aggarwal (resoon- dent No. 1) was substituted as plaintiff in place of the petitioner Smt. Rukmani Devi.(2) On 21st March, 1977 the responden...
Om Prikash Mittal Vs. Council of Architecture and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi223; ILR1983Delhi197
S.B. Wad, J. (1) In this petition, under Section 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of the Council of Architecture passed on October 9, 1979, refusing the registration to the petitioner as an Architect, under Section 25(b) of the Architect Act, 1972. The relevant portion of the order reads : 'I regret to inform you that on the basis of the documents submitted, and your personal interview, you cannot be registered as an Architect under Section 25(b) of the Architect Act, 1972 as the Council is not satisfied that you were engaged in practice of ex service as an Architect for more than 5 years prior to 27th April, 1974.'The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that Section 35 and 37 of the Act violate Article 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution and are, thereforee, unconstitutional. (2) For appreciating the petitioner's grievance, the object and scheme of the Act will how to be noted. The statement of objects and reasons fully explain the reasons for t...
Balraj Suri Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi790
Sachar, J. (1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge. The petitioners applied for and were given sanction by the Municipal Corporation for construction of a building on 19-11-1966. The building broadly was to consist of Blocks A, B & C. The sanction apparently was given subject to the condition that the structure which was existing would be demolished before the commencement of further construction. Sanction was released on 2-12-1966. There is no dispute that blocks A and C were constructed. Block B however, was not constructed. (2) In June, 1969 the appellant applied for extension of time to complete the construction. Section 333 provides for a person applying for sanction by giving notice to the Commissioner. Section 336 provides for giving or refusing to sanction. By Section 337(3) it is provided that if any person does not commence or execute the work within one year of the date on which the building of work is sancti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »