Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi rent control act 1958 repealed section 12 limitation for application for fixation of standard rent Year: 1958 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.128 seconds)

Raj Kishan JaIn Vs. Tulsi Dass Etc.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1959P& H291

..... ganj, delhi. each portion consists of four flats and each flat has been given on rent to a different tenant. thus eight, tenants occupy this building. on the application of some of the tenants for fixation of standard rent under section 7a read with schedule iv of the delhi and aimer merwara rent control act, 1947, the controller fixed the rent at rs ..... superintendence is conferred on high courts. section 8(1) of the general clauses act which only reproduces section 8(1) of the english interpretation act with suitable verbal changes reads :'8. construction of references to repealed enactments : (1) where this act, or any central act or regulation made after the commencement of this act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without ..... writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certioran, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part xii and for any other purpose. (2) the power conferred on a high court by clause (1) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the ..... 1958 sc 398, wherein it has been laid down:'the powers of judicial interference under article 227 with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature are not greater than the powers under article 226. under article 226, the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. but under article 227 the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits .....

Radhakishan Ramnath Vs. State of Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR711; (1959)IILLJ177Bom

1. The applicants are the proprietor and manager respectively of the Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Factory at Kamptee. Both have been convicted under S. 9 of the Central Provinces and Berar Maternity Benefit Act, 1930, read with S. 5(3) and under rule 10 read with rule 4 of the Central Provinces and Berar Maternity Benefit Rules, 1930, for not paying maternity benefit to a female employee in their factory, and for failing to maintain a muster-roll of female employees. Both the applicants have been fined Rs. 200 and Rs. 25 respectively on each of the above counts, or in default, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks each. 2. The merits of the convictions have not been challenged before me, nor was the evidence referred to. But Mr. M. N. Phadke on behalf of the applicants has raised several contentions. 3. In order to show the nature of these contentions it is necessary to state certain facts. The Central Provinces and Berar Maternity Benefit Act is Act VI of 1930. Though publ...

Roop Kishore Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Moradabad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1959All433

ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Morada-bad, dated 28th July, 1956, directing the petitioner to vacate a particular shop in Moradabad or in default, directing his eviction by the use of Police force. 2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit supporting the petition is this: One Smt. Sundaria was the tenant of shop No. 22, Railway road, Moradabad for a long time. The petitioner entered into partnership with her in May, 1955, and ever since that date he and Smt. Sundaria were in joint possession. She died on 2nd May 1958 leaving a son Balbir. The petitioner continued the partnership with Balbir and has been in possession of the shop. The partners are running a hotel business there. 3. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer served a notice on the petitioner under Section 7-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The petitioner was ...

Krishna Das Nandy Vs. Bidhan Chandra Roy

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1959Cal181,63CWN29

P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This difficult case has been well argued and our only regret is that, however much we wished the contrary, this litigation would not end here but must go back to the trial court, though on a short point, for its final disposal. Complex, indeed, and varied were the questions which arose for our decision and the excellence of the arguments on either side added to their intricacies and enhanced our difficulties. We spent a considerable time over this case which had to be argued twice,--on a new point on the second occasion,--but we do not regret it as this space of time has borne fruit and it has not gone in vain and, eventually, we have been able to reach an agreed conclusion which accords with our sense of justice and view of the law. 2. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was a suit for ejectment and mesne profits. The appellant before us was the defendant in that suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff respondent on 23-6-1955. It was decreed by the lea...

Padmanabhan Mathevan Vs. Ramaswami Pillai Mathevan Pillai

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1959Ker5

Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. The matter arises in execution of the decree, on objection raised by the respondent -- 5th defendant, that the execution of the decree is barred by limitation, as regards personal execution for realisation of the mesne profits, granted under the decree. The court below upheld the objection and hence this appeal by the assignee-decree-holder.2. The decree set aside a mortgage which stood in favour of the 5th defendant in respect of plaint Item No. 3 and allowed recovery of the same, with past and future mesne profits. The decree was passed on 4-3-1121. On 18-10-1123, the first execution application was filed, praying inter alia for recovery of the mesne profits but only 'as a charge against the properties'. The prayer for personal execution against the 5th defendant was for the first time made in the second execution petition dated 22-6-1953, but as by then, more than three years had elapsed from the date of the decree the court below held such prayer was barred...

Niresh Chandra Das Vs. Paresh Chandra Routh

Court : Guwahati

G. Mehrotra, J. 1. This is a miscellaneous appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. The respondent obtained a decree against the appellant and in execution of that decree he attached the tenancy right of the appellant, The appellant has a right under a lease to remain in possession of certain premises on payment of monthly rent. This right of the appellant is sought to be attached and sold in execution of the decree. An objection was raised by the judgment-debtor that this is not a property which is liable to be attached under Section 60, Civil Procedure Code. The objection was repelled by the Subordinate Judge and the present appeal has been filed against that order. 2. The main question is whether under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code the right of the appellant to remain in possession of the house as a tenant is liable to be attached or sold in execution of the decree or not. Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that any property which is saleable can be atta...

Chunilal Vallabhaji Gandhi Vs. State

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1959Bom554; (1959)61BOMLR807; 1959CriLJ1429; ILR1959Bom1336

1. The appellant was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Bombay, of an offence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Against the order of conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred.2. C.N. Patel, Drugs Inspector, received information on 19th October 1956 that the appellant who was trading in the name of 'Vivigan Products Corporation' at Kandivli was manufacturing drugs without obtaining a licence under the Drugs Act, 1940. Patel then lodged a complaint with the Kandivli Police Station against the appellant for contravention of Section 18(c) of the Drugs Act. The Police Officer raided the place occupied by the appellant and attached under a panchanama certain articles found on the premises, At the time the son and daughters of the appellant were also found present and taking part in the manufacture of Vivig...

D.N. Ghosh and anr. Vs. Additional Sessions Judge and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1959Cal208,63CWN147,(1959)ILLJ587Cal

ORDERSinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are briefly as follows: The petitioners are the owners of certain Coal Field popularly known as Diguli Colliery within the district of Burdwan. It is said that for some time the coal field was worked by the petitioners but as they were unable to carry on the business profitably they entered into an agreement on or about 12-1-1948 with one Sri A.K. Goswami. That agreement is evidenced by a registered document, a copy of which was handed over to me at the hearing. The nature of this document is relevant for determination of the points raised in this case. The document starts by describing the petitioners as owners of the properties described in the schedule annexed thereto, along with the lease-hold described and delineated in the attached plan. It is then stated that the petitioners were owners of the said properties along with the lease-hold bearing the name 'The Diguli Colliery' and it was worked by the First Party, namely, the petitioners, und...

Basheshar Nath Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1959SC149; [1959]35ITR190(SC); 1959Supp(1)SCC528; [1959]Supp1SCR528

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.208 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the order dated January 29, 1958, of the Commissioner of Income-tax,Delhi & Rajasthan at New Delhi, under s. 8A(2) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947. Harnam Singh and Sadhu Singh for the appellant. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar for the respondents. A. C. Mitra and B. P. Maheshwari, for the interveners. 1958. November 19. The Judgment of Das, C. J., and Kapur, J.,, was delivered by Das, C. J. Bhagwati, S. K. Das and Subba Rao, JJ., delivered separate judgments. DAS, C. J.-This appeal by special leave filed by one Shri Besheshar Nath hereinafter referred to as ",the assessee " calls in question the validity of a settlement made under s. 8A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (30 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as " the Investigation Act ". This Act, which came...

The Metal Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. P. Colombi

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1960Kant1; AIR1960Mys1; ILR1959KAR57

Malimath, J. (1) This second appeal arises out of execution proceedings. But it raises a very important point of law as to whether a decree passed by a foreign court prior to the Constitution is executable in another State after the Constitution by which both the courts have now become parts of the Indian Union. The decree in question was passed on 13-1-1950 by the High Court of Calcutta in its Original Jurisdiction the defendant who was then a resident of Kolar in the Mysore State remaining ex parte. On 30-9-53 the decree was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Kolar. On 25-1-54, an execution petition was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kolar, the same having been registered as Ex. 2 of 1954.The judgment-debtor raised several contentions, one of them being that inasmuch he declined to submit himself to the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court, the judgment of that court being one of a foreign court, was not valid and binding on him. It was thus contended t...