Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-12-1982
Reported in : 23(1983)DLT134
G.C. Jain, J. (1) On Oct. 14, 1982, some of the defs. in this case were directed to be served by beat of drums and others by ordinary process and/ or through registered post. A memo of appearance was filed on behalf of defts. I to 6 and 10 and a letter was addressed to the counsel for the plaintiff requesting him for sending signed copies to the pleadings etc. The said defs. were, however, informed that the copies may be collected from the Registry where the same had been filed. The enquiries revealed that only nine copies had been filed though the process fee was to be issued to twelve defs and the same did not contain list of reliance or list of documents and the copies of pleadings were unsigned. The pleadings and the interlocutory applications contained defamatory statements and also incorrect names and addresses. One would not say if they were correct copies as per originals. On these allegations the applicants defs. 1 to 6 & 10) seek directions to the plaintiffs to supply correct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi176; 23(1983)DLT148; 1983(4)DRJ161; 1983RLR73
..... act was not applicable at all to vacant land. the 1947 act was repealed by the delhi and ajmer rent control act, 1952 (act no. xxxviii of 1952) hereinafter referred to as 1952 act' and this act again contained provisions from sections 6 to 9 for fixation of standard rent and provisions of sections 6 to 8 read with second schedule to 1952 act made the provision of determination of standard rent and made a distinction between different types of premises and provided different criteria for fixation thereof. there was clear cut different provision for fixing standard rent ..... section 2 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (act no. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal act') was amended by delhi rent control (amendment) ordinance 1975 (no. 24 of 1975) hereinafter referred to as 'the ordinance') whereby section 3 thereof, clause 2(1) was deemed to have been substituted by the newly substituted clause. before the expiry of the aforesaid ordinance, the parliament passed delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1976 (no. 18 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the 'amending act.') section 2 of the amending act provided that, 'in section 2 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (principal act ..... rather than to ease. in many countries, including england, the rent control legislation is limited to residential houses and does not apply to business premises. in different portions of india, the rent control acts of the states make different provisions regarding residence and non-residential .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi431; 22(1982)DLT29b; 1982(3)DRJ342; 1982RLR576
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) These three appels have been placed before us on a refernce by a Division Bench of this Court. Some of the points in the three appeals are different but it is not necessary to deal with each one of them as the main point is common that alone turns the fate of these appeals. (2) The common point of law which arises for determination in these cases is with regard to the interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This provision reads as under :- '(4)In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the Competent Authority shall take into account the following factors, namely:- (a) Whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted ; (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas ; (c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribad.'The contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-1982
Reported in : 1998(3)DRJ240
J.D. Jain, J.(1) On 10th May, 1979, the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi issued an order stayed 'Delhi (Milk and Milk Products Control order, 1979' (for short the order) under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order was promulgated for the purpose of maintaining and increasing the supplies of milk and for securing its equitable distribution in the Union Territory of Delhi. It prohibited manufacture, sale, service, supply or export of milk products and banned the use of milk for the manufacture of case - in, khoa, rubree, paneer or any kind of sweets in the preparation of which milk or any of its products, except ghee was an ingredient. The Order came into force on 15th May, 1979 and ceased to operate on 14th July, 1979. However, while the Order was still in force officials of the Food & Supplies Department, Delhi Administration, conducted a raid on the shop of the petitioner, who runs halwai shop in the name name style of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-1982
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi691
Sachar, J. (1) Does Delhi Administration lack competency in law to fix rates for admission to Cinematograph exhibition in Cinema houses notwithstanding the extension of the Punjab Cinemas Regulations Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be called the Punjab Act 1952), as at present in force in State of Haryana to Delhi by means of notification dated 21-11-1980 iss,ued by the Central Government under Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws Act), 1950 (hereinafter to be called the 1950 Act) is the main question that calls for determination in this batch of writ petitions. (2) The points in all these writ petitions are similar and broadly we shall be taking the fact from the representative petition to which the counsel for the petitioners referred namely Cw 959182. It is a common case that the decision in the present writ petition will also govern the decisions in the other writ petitions. (3) Article 245 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the terr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-21-1982
Reported in : (1983)36CTR(Del)355; ILR1983Delhi708; [1983]143ITR551(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) This income-tax reference raises a basic question relating to the concept of accrual of income in the context of the interest payable on the amount of compensation determined in acquisition cases. It arises out of the assessment of the Fazilka Electric Supply Co. Ltd. for the assessment year 1963-64 for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1963.(2) The assesses company was a licensee under the Punjab Electricity Supply Act. This business was taken over by the Government of Punjab on 23-7-1949 in pursuance of proceedings under Section 7(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. These proceedings had started with the issue of a letter by the Secretary B to the. Government of Punjab dated 13-3-1947 by Which he gave notice to the assessed company that the Punjab Government had decided to purchase the electricity supply undertaking of the assessed by exercising the option given in clause 9(1) of the license granted to the assessed read with Section 7(2) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-07-1982
Reported in : [1983]53CompCas409(Delhi); (1983)36CTR(Del)153; ILR1983Delhi856; [1983]141ITR174(Delhi)
Chadha, J. 1. Section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, with effect from April 1, 1978. By this section, a provision is made to enable an amalgamated company to carry forward and set off the accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in certain cases of amalgamation of companies on a fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in sub-s. (1) of s. 72A and the Central Govt.'s satisfaction in respect thereof, namely, that the amalgamating company was not, immediately before such amalgamation, financially viable by reason of its liabilities, losses and other relevant factors and that the amalgamation was in the public interest. The satisfaction of the Central Govt. is to be arrived at after considering the recommendations of the specified authority being such authority that the Central Govt. may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify for the purposes of s. 72A. The effect of such declaration is,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-19-1982
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi414
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This writ petition is filed by the Chairman of the Punjab Wakf Board against the order dated 11-11-1981 superseding the Board -and also against the order of the extension of time of the supersession, Punjab Wakf Board is a composite Board for the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh. This is the richest Wakf Board in India. The Board was constituted by nomination of eleven members an 11-8-1978. (2) Before the supersession of the Board a Show Cause Notice under Section 64(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 was issued on 3-10-1981. The said show cause notice reads as under : 'F. No. 4(13) [81-Wakf Government of India Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs (Legislative Department) New Delhi, 3rd October, 1981 Show Cause Notice Whereas it has come to the notice of the Central Government that the Punjab Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' : (i) has been unable to perform the duty imposed on it by or under the Wakf Act, 1954 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-20-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi143; 23(1983)DLT54; 1982RLR742
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a petition for revision on behalf of the tenant under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order dated 28th August, 1980 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing an application for leave to contest the eviction proceedings filed against them by the respondent/landlord on the ground of bona tide personal requirement. (2) On or about 15th May, 1980, respondent Shri Keshav Kumar Swarup filed a petition for eviction of the appellants under clause (e) to Subsection (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Act inter alias on the following grounds: The petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute. The petitioner's family consists of wife, son and a daughter. The petitioner is a businessman and Director of Sugar Mill and Vanaspati Plant run under the name and style of 'Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd.'. This factory has an office at Delhi in Deli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-17-1982
Reported in : (1982)2ITD207(Delhi)
1. The question whether the assessees should be assessed under the head 'Income from house property' or under the head 'Income from other sources' may look simple but the answer is not easy to find especially in view of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), coupled with myriad of decisions. The difficulty is further aggravated by the inelegantly drafted documents bearing on the question. To understand the implications of the question and to find out an answer thereto, it is necessary to state the facts in detail.2. Shri Dewan Chand and Shri Badri Nath were joint lessees of a plot of land, measuring about 4,628 sq. yds., plot No. 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, under a registered perpetual lease deed dated 17-9-1937.Thereafter, the property came into the hands of Shri Prem Nath by a registered conveyance deed dated 16-5-1938. Shri Prem Nath constructed a dwelling house on the said plot and this property was treated as the property of the family of Shri Prem Nath of wh...
Tag this Judgment!