Delhi Court February 1986 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.
Om Parkash Vs. Kanshi Nath Sham Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi1; 1986(11)DRJ256
S.B. Wad, J.(1) R.S.A. 12/85 is the plaintiff's appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in R.C.A. 15/82. Cross-objections are filed by defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The plaintiff claims to be the tenant in the portion of the first floor of premises No. 3634-3637, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The defendants are the present owners of the said premises. Plaintiff filed suit No. 645/73 for permanent injunction against the defendants from dispossession. He alleged that he was a tenant in the property He further claimed that the eviction order No. 1462/63 passed on 16-3-63 by Sh B.K. Agnihotri, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi was illegal, null and void. He further asserted that the execution proceedings started by the defendants pursuant to the said eviction order were also illegal.(2) The said property in question was originally owned by M/s. Dinanath Nanak Chand, who had let out the first floor of the property to M/s Janki Dass Ram Sarup, defendant No. 4 in the suit. Ac...
Raj Rani Vs. Gian Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ82; 1986RLR284
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This is a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi 'Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the tenant-Smt. Raj Rani against the order of eviction dated 29th October, 1977 passed by an Additional Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal vide judgment dated 27th February, 1981.(2) The facts leading to this appeal in brief are that the appellant-Smt, Raj Rani is a tenant in respect of a portion of property bearing No. 149-151, Block No. I, VishwasNagar,KarkariRoad,SarwariaMarket,Shahdara, Delhi under the respondent Shri Gian Chand. The landlord moved an application for eviction of the appellant on 7th November, 1975 on the ground of (i) non-payment of rent ; (ii) bonafide personal requirement a& residence ; and (iii) causing substantial damage to the demised premises falling under Clauses (a), (e) and (j) respectively of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The eviction petition was resisted by the appellant on...
Collector of Customs Vs. S.B. Plastic Industries and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: (1988)LC573Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay has filed the above captioned k appeals being aggrieved from the orders passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. In column No. 3 of the memorandum of appeal the date of service has been mentioned 1.6.1985 and all the four appeals were presented in the Registry on 8.10.85. With all the appeals, the appellant had attached similar applications for condonation of delay.Application for condonation of delay in Appeal No. CA 1942/85-C. is reproduced as under:- "The Collector (Appeals) order No. S/49-246, 538, 1479 & 1390/ 84CL dated 30.4.85 was received on 1,6.85. The time limit of 3 months from the date of communication of the above order for filing appeal before Appellate Tribunal expired on 1.9.85. The appeal could not be filed- within the prescribed limit of 3 months as the case file was mixed up with other files. This caused the delay. The appellate decision involved an important question of law and the same if allowed to stand, will have ser...
Mohinder Kumar Bhatia Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD627(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the AAC dated 10-1-1985 relating to the assessment year 1981-82.2. The issue in this appeal is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any justification for the addition of Rs. 47,500 to the total income of the assessee under the head 'Income from other sources'.3. The above addition was made by the ITO in the impugned assessment order dated 15-2-1984 made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the year under appeal. The ITO found that property for House No. 1, Road No. 44, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, had been sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 as stated in me agreement for sale and purchase entered into between the vendor and vendee on 11-1-1979.In support of the consideration shown in this instrument, the assessee had filed valuation report from his valuer, toe ITO himself obtained the valuation of the said property from the Valuation Officer after making a refere...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anchor Pressing Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: [1986]160ITR597(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. These applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be disposed of by a consolidated order as they arise out of the assessments of the same assessed in somewhat similar circumstances. 2. ITCs Nos. 225 and 226 of 1982 arise out of cross-appeals preferred by the assessed and the Department in relation to the assessment of M/s. Anchor Pressing Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1971-72. ITCs Nos. 223 and 224 of 1982 arise out of the, cross-appeals by the assessed and the Department in relation to the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. ITC No. 19 of 1983 pertains to the assessment year 1974-75. 3. For the assessment year 1971-72, the Income-tax Officer rejected the books of account of the assessed and made an addition of Rs. 18,26,000 to the profits disclosed by the assessed and this figure was subsequently rectified to Rs. 14,00,000 by the Income-tax Officer himself. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the addition to Rs. 2,50,000...
Uday Kaushish Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ308
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed acquisition of about 3 bighas and 13 bids was of land belonging to him comprised in field Nos. 28.25.2, 40.5.2 and 6.1.1. situate in the Revenue Estate of Village Samikha, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. Initially this land and others were notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. on 12/2/1986. There was also a declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the land in dispute on 12/2/1986. In Pursuance of the above notifications, the land in question was sought to be taken possession of by the respondents. The petitioner thereupon approached this court with writ petition C.W. 948/86 raising various objections to the proposed acquisition. This writ petition was disposed of on 23/10/1986. The notifications dated 12/2/1986 issued under Sections 4 & 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, were quashed by the judgment dated 23/10/1986. The writ petition was allo...
Ghasi Ram and anr. Vs. Harnam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT502; 1986(11)DRJ216
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This order shall also dispose of appeals No. 300/83, 301/83 & 303/83, as all these appeals arise out of a common order.(2) Harnam Singh. respondent herein, is the owner of property No. Wz 803 (plot No. A/62) Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The appellants arc in occupation of different portions of the said properly as tenants under the respondent. On February 8, 1978 the respondent-landlord brought four separate petitions for their eviction from the premises under their tenancies on the allegations that he was the owner-landlord of the premises in dispute. The existing structure was temporary, ugly and inhabitable. He bonafide required the same for purposes of building/rebuilding and such rebuilding could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It was further averred that he bad got the plan for reconstruction sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, estimate prepared and had the necessary funds. (3) The appellants resisted the petitions. The pleas ...
Kehar Singh and Another Vs. the State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ291; 29(1986)DLT399; 1986(11)DRJ23
Aggarwal, J.1. This order be read in continuation of our order dt. January 30, 1986. 2. The petition was admitted on the limited question of facilities to which the petitioners are entitled in Jail. 3. The two petitioners along with Satwant Singh were found guilty of the charge under S. 120-B read with S. 302, Penal Code, and were sentenced to death. The petitioners are at present lodged in separate cells in ward No. 4. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that after the aforesaid conviction and sentence was passed upon them they have been lodged in separate cells and which are heavily guarded. They have alleged that three search-lights are focused on their cells in the result they are unable to have sleep. They have further alleged that they are not allowed to wear turbans and shoes. They have further complained that they are not allowed to go out of their cells to have a walk and further they are not allowed to communicate with each other and other inmates of the jail. Their furth...
Jai Prakash Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT521; 1986RLR248
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present revision petition which is directed against an order dated 29th August, 1985 of Shri C. K. Chaturvedi, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi arises out of the following facts :- (2) On November 15, 1981 at about 7.45 P.M. digging operations on the construction site of Sidhartha Continental Hotel, Vasant Vihar were going on. Those operations were being supervised by S. R. Prabhu, Project Engineer, Pushpinder Singh, Engineer, Mahabir Singh and Anil Arora, Supervisors. During those operations, suddenly the ground caved in with the result that one Vishwa Nath Pradhan died while some others were injured. On account of that death, Fir No. 262 dated 15th November, 1981 under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code was registered against the aforesaid engineers and supervisors. After investigation, report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code . was lodged against the aforesaid four persons. (3) The matter was still pending with the Magistrate when the prosecution filed...
Krishan Lal Vs. Nitu Alias Asha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi460; 1986(11)DRJ290
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This is a husband's appeal against the orders of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 11th July, 1984. The Additional District Judge had refused to grant a decree of divorce under Section 13(l)(ib) to the husband.(2) It is the case of the petitioner husband, the appellant before me, that the parties were married on 20th February 1977, and a daughter has born to the parties on 24th January, 1978.(3) It is the case of the husband that the respondent wife wanted to live separately from the parents of the husband, that he gave into the desire of the wife and a separate accommodation, a rented house, was taken at B-3/49, Safdarjang Enclave. New Delhi. In this house the younger brother of the petitioner. Din Dayal, also resided with the parties to the marriage.(4) It is the care of the husband that the wife used to make demands on the husband that he give financial assistance to her parents, i.e. the mother and father, five other sisters and three brothers of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »