Delhi Court May 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 7 of about 68 results (0.009 seconds)Cantonment Board, Delhi Vs. Mangey Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi77; 1986(11)DRJ97
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The question of law raised in this second appeal is whether the Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantt. Delhi has power or jurisdiction to revise or reopen the plans already sanclioned.(2) Shri Mangey Ram, respondent filed a suit for injunction to restrain the Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantt. permanently by injunction from reconsidering the building plan'- already sanctioned by the Cantonment Board in favor of the plaintiff ;n respect of property premises No. 47/1, 47/2, 48/1 and 48/2. Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The Cantonment Board passed a resolution No. 21 dated December 4, 1968 granting sanction and approval of the building plan and the sanctioned plan along with a copy of the said resolution was given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was served with a notice dated April 9, 1969 by the Cantonment Board alleging that the building plans have been submitted for an area measuring 62'-4' x 30'-6' while the area leased out under the original lease-deed in 60'-6' x 28' and that the plans ...
Tag this Judgment!Nishar Ahmed Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ96
(1) Delhi Police Act under S. 28 S. 112-Petitioner applied for obtaining the License from the D.C.P. Licensing and the application is pending for disposal and has not been decided finally. 'Therefore, it is not a case of a failure to obtain License'-Petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Devender Nath Malik Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR426
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This is a petition for the grant of Succession Certificate moved u/s. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the Act) in respect of the properties detailed in annexures C and D of the petition which were left by the petitioner's wife Mrs. Manju Malik (deceased) at the time of her demise. An objection has been taken by the respondents that this petition for the grant of succession certificate is maintainable only before the District Judge, Delhi and that this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. (2) On the other hand, it is contended On behalf of the petitioner that the definition of 'District Judge' given in Section 2(bb) of the Act means the Judge of a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction', and that Delhi High Court having been invested with ordinary original civil jurisdiction under S. 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, in every suit the value of Which exceeds Rs. 1 lac, this High Court shall mean the Principal Civil Court of o...
Tag this Judgment!Satya NaraIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Del)365; ILR1986Delhi336; [1986]160ITR693(Delhi)
Mahindbr Narain, J. (1) By this writ petition the petitioner Satya Narain Prakash Punj seeks quashing of notice No. IAC;ACQ-2/C-6/73-74/3199, dated 10-8-1973, Annexure D to the writ petition. (2) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner and respondents 4 to 20 had purchased property bearing No. 10, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi from Dr. Kami Singhji. The property comprises of land admeasuring 2.60 acres or 12,584 Sq. yards (or thereabout). The sale deed dated 5-2-1973 with respect to the transaction was registered as No. 798 in Additional Book No. I, Vol. No. 3068 on pases 1 to 97 on 6-2-1973. (3) The writ petition came for admission on 6-9-1973 on which date the following order was passed by this Court :- '6.9.73.Mr. T. N. Sethi with Mr. S. K. Dholakia and Mr. Y. K. Sabharwal. Show cause notice to respondents No. 1 and 2. Notice of stay application for 8-10-73. Proceeding before the competent authority to be stayed in the meanwhile. Notice of stay application ...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Anothers
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT321(Del)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This is a batch of writ petition certain companies manufacturing cigarettes which can be disposed by a common order. They raise the same questions arising out of the levy of excise duty on cigarettes which can be considered in the back ground of the facts in C.W. 399/82 in which the petitioner is the Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. ('ITC', for short). 2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to give a broad outline of the relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, (Act 1 of) 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 3 of the Act which is charging section, in so far as is relevant for our present purposes, reads thus : '3(1) there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than Salt which are produced or manufactured in India .... as, and at the rates; set forth in the First Schedule.' 3. 'Excisable goods' is defined by Section 2(d) to mean...
Tag this Judgment!Nanu Mal and Sons and Another Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]65STC262(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Suit No. 1402 of 1982. The suit is for recovery of price of the goods and in the suit amount is included a sum of Rs. 5,44,925 which is stated to be due from the first defendant in lieu of ST-1 forms. The application which has led to the order under challenge being passed was moved with the idea of getting ST-1 forms from the defendant even before the suit was decided. The reason for this is that in the meantime, the plaintiff has been assessed to sales tax for the year 1981-82 and the turnover includes the sales made to first defendant firm. The delivery of the ST-1 forms would have the effect of reducing the taxable turnover of the plaintiff to the extent of the amounts specified in the ST-1 forms because it is the principle of sales tax law that a sale by registered dealer to a registered dealer is deducted from the taxable turnover on the delivery of the ST-1 forms. The amount of...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Badood Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT112
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) These two revision petitions arc-directed against the orders of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 15th April, 1985 appearing in the Entry of summary trial register whereby for an offence under Sections. 92/93/97 of the Delhi Police Act, the petitioner was convicted on the basis of pleading of guilty and sentenced to fine of Rs. 80.00 and in default of fine simple imprisonment for 7 days and in a similar entry of summary trial register the petitioner .was convicted for an offence under, Sections 120A/132 of the Indian Railway Act and was sentenced to fine of Rs. 150.00 and in default of fine simple imprisonment for I 'days. Both the orders are dated 15th April, 1985. (2) .ONE of the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that procedure prescribed under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of trial of summons cases was not followed. It is submitted that the particulars of offences of which accused was charged were. not even put to th...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Krishnan Vs. Prativa Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ327
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This is a revision petition under the proviso to Section 25(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (for short 'the Act').(2) Shib Nath Mukherjee was the owner of property bearing municipal No. C-192, Sarvodaya Enclave. New Delhi. He let it out to T.V. Krishnan, petitioner herein, on a monthly rent of Rs. 475.00 in February, 1975. Shib Nath Mukherjee died on March 24, 1979 leaving behind his widow Smt Prativa Devi as his sole heir. The tenant started paying rent to her.(3) On January 6, 1981 Smt.Prativa Devi brought a petition against the tenant for recovery of possession of the said property on the ground of personal bonafide requirement, i.e. under clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.(4) It was admitted by the tenant that the premises in dispute had been let out for residential purpose. He however denied the ownership of Smt. Prativa Devi Learned Addl. Controller on examining the evidence found that she was the owner of the premises ...
Tag this Judgment!