Delhi Court October 2004 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.
Vinod Chander Vs. Ishwar Dayal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT733
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Civil Revision No.1022/2003 seeks to challenge the judgment dated 14.8.2003 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-17/2003 whereby the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') holding that the requirements of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) were not bona fide.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller are as follows:'Shri Pramod Chander (since deceased) now through LRs along with younger brother Sh.Vinod Chander and his mother Smt.Leelawati Ohjha(since deceased and name deleted) had filed an eviction petition against the respondent Sh.Ishwar Dayal on the ground contained in clause (e) to proviso (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, pleading that the suit premises that is two bed room one drawing room, one bath room cu toilet, verandah on both sides Along with courtyard on two sides, ...
Pawan Kumar Vs. Krishna Dwivedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT691
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 14th January, 2004 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' ), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the landlord to withdraw his suit for eviction under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. The facts of the case are that two petitions were filed by Smt.Krishna Dwivedi under Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against Surinder Kumar and Pawan Kumar with respect to tenanted premises No. 248, Sant Nagar, New Delhi - 65. Both petitions were taken up together and disposed by a common order dated 28th September, 2002, of the Additional Rent Controller (for short 'the Controller'), wherein the Controller has passed an order of eviction directing the landlord to rebuild the premises within four months and in default thereof, to pay Rs.10,000/- per month by way of compensation. Being aggrieved of this order of the Controller, both the parties filed appeals before the Tribunal....
Shri Jyoti Prashad and ors. Vs. Shri Nathu Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT585
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16th September, 1985 passed by the learned Single Judge the present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr.Issar learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC cannot be applied to the suits instituted after withdrawal or abandonment of previous suit and the same cannot be read so as to b... of suit which has already been instituted before the other suit had been abandoned or dismissed. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant the the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed or rejected the plaint within the ambit and scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and, thereforee, the rejection of plaint is liable to be set aside and the suit is liable to be restored. It was contended that in the previously instituted suit the cause of action was different. The suit was a suit for mandatory injunction and declaration and th...
Vee Pee Printing Press Vs. Parmeshwari Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT757
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.05.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E.No.146/2001, whereby the learned Controller has allowed the eviction petition of the respondent.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller are as follows:-'Case of the petitioner is that she is an old and ailing widow more than 69 years of age. She is having five sons. All her sons are married and are residing with her except one. It has been claimed by her that she is having a large family and at present there are 20 persons residing in the property in question and she requires atleast 21 rooms in order to fulfill her needs and the needs of her family members who are dependent upon her for their residence. She is presently residing along with her family at property No.4892-96, Laddu Ghati, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. She and her family are in occupation of entire first floor and second floor besides some portion of first floor. Respondent is...
Satish Chander Sabharwal and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi125; 2004(77)DRJ675
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in PC No. 9/1999, whereby the learned Judge vide his order dated 6th March, 2000 has dismissed the petition of the appellants herein holding that the Will Ex.PW3/1, dated 6th November, 1990 was a suspicious document.2. The brief facts of the case as has been noted by the Additional District Judge are as under :''The facts of the above detailed reference petition dated 5th December, 1998 are these, Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal had died on 13th November, 1990. The deceased executed a Will Ex.PW3/1, dated 6th November, 1990 registered on 8th November, 1990 in regard to his properties in favor of his wife Smt. Kailash Wanti, petitioner No.2 and his son, Satish Chander Sabharwal, petitioner No.1. As a matter of fact, he bequeathed life estate only, in favor of petitioner No.2 in respect with two quarters bearing No. 129 and 130, Vasdev Nagar, Andha Mughal, Partap Nagar, Delhi - 110007. He beque...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Radha Bai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Del)5; 115(2004)DLT82; [2005]272ITR264(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, this Court vide order dated 23.08.1991, directed the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the following question:- ''Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no adventure in the nature of trade and thereby deleting business income of Rs. 11,87,387/- from the income of the assessed?'' 2. The Revenue had earlier moved the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the said application was rejected. Hence, the Revenue approached this Court and in view of the order made by this Court, the present reference is placed before the Court. 3. The assessed is an individual and was deriving income at the relevant time from money-lending business. The accounting year ended in question on 31.03.1983. The assessed vide sale deed dated 25.07.1958 for Rs. 21,021/- had acquired a plot of land admeasuring 21...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Virender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT266; 2005(79)DRJ120; [2005(105)FLR188]; (2005)IILLJ402Del; 2006(1)SLJ487(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this judgment I would dispose of two writ petitions being WP (C)No.5561/2000 filed by Delhi Transport Corporation challenging the validity and illegality of the order dated 4.9.1997 and 17.8.1997. Annexure P-16 and P-17 respectively to the writ petition passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi and WP(C)No.6344/1999 filed by the workman praying therein that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join duty and also pay him back wages from 29.1.1991 (the date of his alleged termination). The relevant facts to the present writ petitions are that the workman was employed as a Conductor with the corporation on 19.3.1986. He was stated to be having dual employment i.e. with Delhi Transport Corporation as well as UBS Programmes w.e.f. 25.4.1989. After conducting a fact finding enquiry the workman was served a charge-sheet on 15.11.1990 for the alleged misconduct to which the workman filed a reply denying all the articles of charges. Enquiry officer w...
Khub Chand Tyagi Vs. Djb
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR90(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for appointment of an independent arbitrator. 2. The parties to this petition entered into an Agreement dated 15th November, 2000 for replacement of old water line in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner is a partnership concern of Engineers and Contractors and the respondents are the Delhi Jal Board and its functionaries. Clause 25 of the Agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:-'Clause 25:Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality or workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, speci...
Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs. Raj Dua and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT367; 2005(79)DRJ361; 2005(30)PTC76(Del)
R.C. Jain, J.1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the defendant though the matter was passed over once. Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that after the filing of the present suit, the trademark of the plaintiff namely 'Sangam' has been registered vide registration No. 876426 and a certificate of registration was issued on 22.12.2003. The factum of registration of the trademark stands already incorporated in the suit. Defendant has not cared to file any amended/additional written statement. Mr. Bansal, has made a vehement plea for grant of an ad-interim injunction in terms of the prayer and has sought support from a recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Midas Hygine Industries P. Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors., 2004 (28) PTC 121 .2. On a consideration of the averments and allegations made in the plaint, the material obtaining on record and having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is a regi...
Dalmia Ceramic Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Del)187; [2005]277ITR219(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. These group of references which are at the instance of the assesses have been referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though there were three questions suggested before the Tribunal, however the Tribunal has referred only one question which reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the depreciation was correctly allowed on factory and non-factory buildings purchased from Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. which had ceased to be a holding-company in the asst. yr. 1976-77 'The same question has been raised for other assessment years, namely, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83.2. The undisputed facts are required to be noted, which are as under:For the previous year ending on 30th June, 1974, relevant to the asst. yr. 1975-76, the assessed purchased on payment, factory buildings for Rs. 16,24,355 and non-factory building for Rs. 3,75,202 from its holding-company, namely...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »