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.
Smt. Raj Kumari Nanda Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR66(Delhi)
Prakash Narain, C.J. 1. The question of law referred to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench'B'), reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law having regard to the provisions of section 23 of the Act to adopt the actual rent received as the annual letting value of the property ignoring the annual letting value determined by the municipal authorities 2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1968-69. The assessed is said to be the owner of property at 16, Ring Raod, Lajpat Nagar-IV), New Delhi. This property was let out to the Singapore Embassy at Rs. 6000 p.m from June 15, 1967. Rent in advance for 8 12 months was received by the assessed amounting to Rs. 51,000. On February 9,1968, during the accounting year, the tenant wrote to the assessed that since the front part of the front lawn had been reclaimed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation and the land available to the tenant had been reduc...
Karam Singh Negi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi53
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner was born on .13-7-1916. He was a qualified Mistry and joined the service of the Municipal Committee, Delhi as foreman Motor Workshop in the year 1949. He underwent a course of Automitive Engine Re-building and received training in the vocational trades and secured a diploma for the course of mechanics. On 24-8-1973, the petitioner made an application that he was working as Workshop Superintendent in the Motor Workshop, City Zone.and according to the Rules, he being a technical person should retire on the attainment of 60 year of age on 10-7-1976. This application was treated as a request for extention of service up to, the age of 60 years. It was rejected and he was informed by the Zonal Health Officer that he will attain the age of 58 on 9-7-1974 and will be retired in the afternoon of that date. He challenges this order in this writ petition. (2) The case of the petitioner is that his case is covered by Fr 56(b) which before its amendment in 1975 provi...
Ranjit Singh Tomar Vs. Hindustan Export and Import Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi802
Avadh Behari Rosatgi , J.(1) The petitioner is a dismissed employee. He was dismissed by the employer, the respondent company, for misconduct. He was a peon getting Rs. 105 per month besides Rs. 5.50 per month as cycle allowance. He was in the employ of the company from 1958 to 23-2-1968 when he was summarily dismissed. He willfully refused to obey the orders of the employer. He persistently defied the lawful orders of his superiors. He refused to go to the bank for encashing a cheque. He refused to sign the employment register. He was asked to wind the clock which he refused. So the employer dismissed him from service. (2) The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The Governent referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The question referred was whether the termination of petitioner's services was unjustified and illegal. Before the Labour Court it was not disputed that the employer did not hold any enquiry. But the employer produced evidence before the court. The court found the em...
Onkar Mal Lakhotia, Deceased and ors. Vs. Sumitra Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi254; 23(1983)DLT291
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the order of Rent Control Tribunal dated 15th March, 1982 whereby the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the 5th Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 18th May, 1981 under clause (a) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The appeal arises in the following circumstances :- (3) The landlady in the case is Smt. Sumitra Devi, a widow. The tenants were one Onkar Mal Lakhotia and his son Rama Shankar Lakhotia. (4) On 7-1-1976 the landlady sent a notice of demand to the tenants demanding rent for the period November and December, 1975. On 7-9-1977 a petition for ejectment was filed by the landlady against berth Onkar Mal Lakhotia and his son Rama Shankar Lakhotia for their failure to pay the rent inspire of notice of demand dated 7th January, 1976. (5) The tenants filed the written statem...
Murari Lal Verma Vs. Nanak Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT195; 1983(4)DRJ30
Sultan Singh, J.(1) In this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), the appellant- tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 14th September, 1973 affirming an appeal the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act against him on 28th July, 1973.(2) Briefly the facts are that the appellant was a tenant under the respondent in a shop of the property at 13/5, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 55.00 . The respondent served a notice dated 1st January 1971 (Ex. A-l) demanding Rs. 880.00 arrears of rent for the period from 1st September, 1969 to 31st December, 1970 at Rs. 55.00 per month. The appellant in his reply dated 11th January, 1971 (Ex. A-2) stated that he had paid rent up to 30th September, 1969, that he had carried out electricity work in the property of the respondent for which he submitted a bill for Rs. 563.05 and h...
Mohd. YamIn Vs. Mohd. Usman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi305
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant/appellant, Shri Mohd. Yamin against ihe judgment and decree dated 1st February, 1979 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi reversing the judgment passed by learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi dated 30th October, 1976. (2) The learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class. Delhi had dismissed the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff/respondent. But on appeal by the plaintiff/respondent, the learned lower appellate court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit for possession. (3) The plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for possession inter alia, on the allegations that he had purchased premises No. 1535-38 situate in Gali Kotanawali Suiwalan, Bazar Chitly Qabar, Delhi from the Custodian of Evacuee property on 7th April, 1970 and sale certificate was duly issued to him by the Custodian. Property No. X/1537 is part. of the premises purchased by the plaintiff/respondent and it consists of...
Vinod Kumar Bhalla Vs. Nanak Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1982
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi984
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The petitioner-tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 19th December, 1981 dismissing his application for leave to defend and passing an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against him. (2) The respondent-landlord on 8th May, 1981 filed the eviction petition out of which this revision has arisen alleging that the petitioner was his tenant in two rooms, kitchen, bath and W. C. on Barsati floor at K-l/39, Model Town, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 325.00 , that he was, owner of the premises which were let for residential purposes that he required the premises bona fide for the residence of himself and his family members consisting of himself, his wife, one married son, daughter-in-law, one unmarried son aged 21 years, three daughters aged 19, 17 and 14 years respectively, besides a servant, that the unmarried son was of marriageable age. He f...
High Polymer Labs. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.K. Mutreja and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi213
G.B. Luthra, J. (1) The present application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Proce(2) The aforesaid application is connected with a suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,00,5001- as damages and for issue of perpetual injunction mentioned hereinaer and for rendition of accounts. (3) The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Harcharan Singh is the managing director of the said Company. defendant no. 1 is a Chemical Engineer. He joined the plaintiff company on 12th December, 1980. He tendered resignation from his post. On 17th September, 1981 that resignation was accepted with effect from 21st September, 1981. (4) According to the plaintiff, M|s. High Polymer Labge. developed a process of manufacture of a Chemical compound known an Azodicarbonamide and its derivatives and started marketing the same some time in the year 1968 under the trade name of Mikrofine-ADC and Mikrofine-ADC-EVA, commonly known as Adc and ADC-EVA in the busin...
Usha Sales Ltd. and ors. Vs. Aruna Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi107; 22(1982)DLT417; 1983(4)DRJ1; 1982RLR763
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) An important question which arises for determination is whether a lease granted in favor of a company with a stipulation that the demised premises is to be used for the residence of a particular employee of the company, and none other without the express approval of the landlord, permits the company to induct another employee for residence there when the former has left or ceased to reside there.(2) This has arisen in a lease granted by Mrs. Aruna Gupta in favor of M/s. Usha Sales Ltd. on 27th January 1981. One of the clauses agreed upon was as under : 'THEaccommodation will not be used for the residence of any other officer than Mr. L.L. Jain unless this has been agreed to by you' (the landlady). It concerned the first floor of property bearing No. 99 Anand Lok, New Delhi).(3) There is no dispute that L.L. Jain resigned from the service of Usha Sales Ltd. and relinquished charge on 5-5-1982. He thereafter left the rented premises and removed his house-hold articles....
Ram Gopal Sawhney Vs. Suraj Balram Sawhney and Sons and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT92; 1983RLR356
D.R. Khaonal, J.(1) These are three sets of objections under Order 21 Rules 36 and 96 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by three different objectors, who claim themselves to be tenants in separate portions of property bearing No. 5, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi. (2) The decree in the present case is based upon an award given by Shri P.N. Khanna, a retired Judge of this Court, who had acted as sole arbitrator between the family members of late Shri Suraj Balram Sawhney, for adjudicating disputes and differences inter-se them with regard to their joint properties, and effecting their partition. Suraj Balram had left behind two sons, namely, Krishan Gopal Sawhney and Ram Gopal Sawhney, and his widow Smt. Ram Piari Sawhney. The award dated 22-5-1978 was later made a rule of the Court on 14-3-1980. (3) The present execution concerns property No. 5, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi, which admittedly has fallen to the share of Krishan Gopal Sawhney. It is be an decree-holder of this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »