Delhi Court January 1983 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.
Kali Pershad Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT28
Sultan Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 11 of The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') is for enhancement of compensation determined under the award dated 23rd October, 1978 of an arbitrator appointed under the Act.2. Property bearing Municipal No. 895, known as 'Morwali Kothi' Ward No. VIII, Mehrauli, New Delhi, owned by the appellant, was requisitioned by the Collector, Delhi under the Act vide his order dated 26th February, 1971. Agreement with regard to the amount of compensation payable in respect of the said property could not be reached and thereforee an aribitrator was appointed under Section 8 of the Act to determine the compensation. The arbitrator has held that possession of the requisitioned property was taken by the authorities on 29th March, 1971, that the covered area of the requisitioned property is 7549 sq. ft. and the open area is 30030 sq. ft. He determined compensation with respect to the covered area only at 30 p...
BhasIn Film Corporation Vs. Shalimar Cinema Etc. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi317; 23(1983)DLT299
G.R. Lutbra, J. 1. The present application is under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Section 151, C.P.C. (in short Code) for setting aside the sale by auction held on September 1, 1977 on 28/48 shares in an immoveable property known as Shalimar Cinema, Bhogal, New Delhi. The aforesaid sale was held in execution of a decree for Rs. 1,44,973/- passed in favor of M/s. Bhasin Film Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder) against S/Shri Shamimuddin and Nasimuddin (hereinafter referred to as the judgment debtors) each of whom hold a share to the extent of 14/48 in the Shalimar Cinema.2. The sum and substance of the grounds on which the sale is sought to be set aside are as under :(a) The sale proclamation was neither prepared nor drawn in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code. (b) The auction was ordinarily fixed for 29th August, 1977 from which date it wag adjourned to 1st September, 1977, without obtaining any leave from the court for the purpose and ...
Management of Kanti Weekly Vs. D.D. Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1983
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi112; 1983RLR237; 1985(2)SLJ582(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the management of M/s. Kanti Weekly against its workman, Syed Sabeer Hussain, Respondent No. 3. The management has impugned the award of the Labour Court dated 28th May, 1974.2. These are the facts. The workman, Syed Sabeer Hussain, was a peon in Kanti Weekly. According to the management he was getting Rs. 104 per month as his salary. On 28th February, 1973 a notice of retrenchment was sent by registered A.D. post to the workman stating that his services will not be required from 1st April, 1973 and that his earned wages and retrenchment compensation will be paid to him on the 31st March, 1973 which would be his last working day. The court has found as a fact that it was delivered to the workman on 3rd or 4th March, 1973. As regards compensation the management sent a crossed cheque of Rs. 396.29 on 27th March, 1973 by registered A.D. post. The court found that it was received by the workman on 2nd Ap...
Murari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)Crimes747; 23(1983)DLT410
M.L. Jain, J.1. Two persons Murari Lal and Inder Singh were challaned under Sections 365 and 392 I.P.C. Inder Singh absconded during trial. The appellant Murari Lal was convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 16-4-1981 under Section 392 read with Section 397 I.P.C. By a separate order of the same date, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He was acquitted of the charge under Section 365 because there was no evidence to show that Murari Lal had an intention to kidnap Rakesh Kumar in order to secretly and wrongfully confine him.2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that Jagdish Prasad Mittal complainant (PW 4) of Mittal Metal Corporation along with Rakesh Kumar Singhal (PW 9) went from his shop in Sadar Bazar to M/s Bhanwar Lal & Bros. Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi, in an Ambassador car DHG 852 driven by accused Inder Singh. Jagdish Prasad collected Rs. 50,000/- from the said firm and put them in two brown paper bundles. He handed over the bundles t...
Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi I
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1983
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas803(Delhi); [1983]141ITR886(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. A number of income-tax references have been heard by us in which the assessed concerned is the Punjab National Bank. In some of the assessment years under consideration, the original assessed was the Punjab National Bank Ltd., before its nationalisation. since many of the points are common, it will be more convenient to deal with the reference in chronological order. There are seven references in all, which relate to the assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66, i.e., six different assessment years. There are two references relating to the assessment year 1963-64. In this judgment the assessment year 1960-61 is under consideration, the number of the relevant reference being ITR No. 104 of 1972. 2. The following questions have been refereed to us in relation to this year : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed was entitled in determining its business profits to proportionate depreciation in respect of that portion of the building which was l...
Addl Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-i Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Del)409; [1983]142ITR673(Delhi)
D.K. Kapoor, J. 1. The following questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in relating to the super profits tax assessment of the respondent-assessed for the assessment year 1963-64 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in laws in holding that the amount of Rs. 7,50,000 transferred to an account styled as contingency reserve was deductible from chargeable profits under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 56,62,050 credit balance in an account styled as contingency reserve should be taken into consideration for computing the capital under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,20,956 credit balance in an account styled as charity ...
Bhartiya Plastic Udyog and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ332; 1983(12)ELT661(Del); 1983RLR261
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The common question which arises for consideration in this and the connected writ petitions, which are being disposed of by this judgment, is regarding the Constitutional validity of section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2.The petitioners are importers of various items from abroad. The petitioners of Civil Writ No. 3563 had imported acrylic plastic scrap. Civil Writ No. 3678 is concerned with import of ball bearings, while in C.W. Nos. 3663 and 3645 the items which are imported by the petitioners are blank video cassettes. There is no dispute regarding the validity of the import. On the goods arriving in India the petitioners filed the bills of entry. The Customs Authorities required the petitioners to pay the customs duty and, in addition thereto, have also asked the petitioners to pay duty levied under section 3(1) of the said Act. This duty has been calculated not on the C.I.F. value of the goods but on their asse...
inder Pal Vs. Ram Charan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT226
J.D. Jain, J. 1. The respondent is owner-landlord of premises bearing municipal No. 1143, Deva Ram Park, Delhi. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of the said premises comprising one room, common courtyard and common latrine. The demised premises is situate on the ground floor. At present the petitioner is paying Rs. 23/- (Twenty-three) per mensem as rent besides electricity charges etc. The tenancy in favor of the petitioner was oral. The respondent moved an application for eviction of the petitioner in May 1980 on the ground of bonafide personal requirement falling under Clause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act). He contended that the premises in question had been let out for residential purpose only, that his family consisted of himself, his wife and four children, that the accommodation available with him comprised only one room, one store and a kitchen which was not reasonably suitable and s...
Nehru Bhavan Trust Vs. C.L. Misra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT387
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. In this appeal the correctness of the order of the learned single Judge, who allowed the respondent application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, is sought to be challenged. 2. The respondent had entered into an agreement dated January 20, 1976 with the appellant for the construction of a building by the name of Nehru Bhawan at Bharatpur. According to the respondent the said agreement comprised of reciprocal promises to be performed by both the parties. 3. According to the respondent the architects of the appellant were required to supply the drawings, etc. which they did not do. According to the respondent some disputes arose between the parties. The respondent wrote a letter dated April 11, 1977 to the said architects of the appellant. The disputes, which were enumerated in the said letter, which were stated to have arisen between the parties were as follows: '1. Withholding of payment of the 7th running bill amounting to Rs. 51,440.65 P. 2. Pa...
Usha Rani Vs. Sikander Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ232
N.N. Goswamy, J. 1. This appeal by the wife is directed against judgment dated 27-2-1982 passed by the learned Addl. District Jude, Delhi whereby her petition under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed.2. The appellant wife filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married in accordance with the Hindu Rites on 23-4-1978 in Delhi. Soon after the marriage i.e. on 24-4-1978, the respondent without the knowledge of the appellant left his house and returned after a couple of hours later and informed the appellant that the respondent was not feeling well. The parties continued to attend hospitality of their friends and relatives in the evening on 24-4-1978 and when the relatives and friends left the appellant and the respondent the respondent-husband showed signs of repulsion and wanted to be away from the company of the appellant. The respondent retired to the bed with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »