Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-13-1987
Reported in : 37(1989)DLT278
Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The appellant herein was defendant in the suit, (S N. 108/80), instituted by the respondent in respect to a plot of land bearing No. E-2, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, which was alleged to have been let out to him under an agreement dated 22nd May, 1971 initially for a period of 11 months and extended from time to lime up to 22nd February, 1976. The suit was for recovery of possession on the plea that the tenancy of the defendant (appellant herein), had come to an end by efflux of time, having not been renewed after 22nd of February, 1976 but nevertheless as a measure of abundant caution, the plaintiff also served a notice of termination of tenancy on the defendant with effect from 22nd March, 1977, by means of notice dated 28th February, 1977. duly served upon him, and that since the defendant.had refused to surrender possession despite this notice, the suit was necessitated. (2) The suit was contested on a number of pleas, including denial of status of the plaintiff a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-19-1987
Reported in : ILR1988Delhi103
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) In this suit the plaintiffs seek the following reliefs against the defendants in respect of the itemises in dispute comprising the first floor premises of* the house known as 99-Anand Lok, New Delhi and the second floor in the annexe premises and the car parking space on the ground floor, therein :(a) restraining defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs their employees representatives, and/or causing obstruction in any manner whatsoever, from going to and using the 1st floor premises and the Car Park space at ground floor, of the house known as 99, Anand Lok, New Delhi. (B)restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs, in respect of the premises, given to plaintiff No. 1 on rent, in house No. 99, Anand Lok, New Delhi. (C)to pass a decree in the sum) of Rs. 1,04,000 as compensation for damages caused to the plaintiff. (D)a decree for further damages at the rate of Rs. 3100 per month and Rs. 500 per day from 5-5-1982 till the date th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-20-1987
Reported in : 1988(14)DRJ113
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This is landlady's Revision Petition against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing her eviction petition on 8/11/1983.(2) The premises in question are the Ground Floor of property No. 254, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The respondents are the tenant. A lease deed was created in favor of the tenant under Section 21 for three years with , effect from 14-7-1975. After the expiry of this lease, a fresh lease was created in favor of the tenant. The rent was raised from Rs. 1900.00 to Rs. 2300.00 per month. According to the tenant this increase was made as a new lease was created for residential-cum-commercial purposes and the tenant was permitted to have his sales office in the premises. According to the landlady the new lease was only for residential purposes as before.(3) The landlady is a qualified Doctor by profession and was in Government service. After her retirement from service in 1972 she was residing at Dehradun. She developed severe ArthrIT is in both her knee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-26-1987
Reported in : AIR1987SC2028; JT1987(3)SC409; 1987(2)SCALE393; (1987)4SCC193; [1987]3SCR1075
1. This appeal has been filed after grant of special leave in this Court by the tenant-appellant challenging a decree for eviction.2. It appears that the respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller, Delhi on various grounds. The Rent Controller who heard the petition of the respondent rejected the petition on other grounds but only granted an order for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) i.e. the premises were bona fide required by the respondent-landlord for their own residence. It is not disputed that these premises are residential and the courts below, the trial court and the appellate court both came to the conclusion that the respondent-landlord has established his bona fide requirement and on these findings the order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been maintained.3. Before the Tribunal a contention was advanced that the appellant-tenant had come to know that the Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-29-1987
Reported in : AIR1988AP226
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The short question of significant practical importance that arises in this civil revision petition is whether an order determining any question within See. 47 C.P.C, passed after amendment of definition of 'decree', in proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, is appealable or revisable. A Division Bench of this court- noticing difference of opinion in the decisions of Division Benches ,in Challa Ramamurthy v. P. Adinarayana' Sons, : AIR1985AP42 and Gopu Peddi Reddy v. Gopu Thirupathy Reddy, : AIR1981AP362 referred this civil revision petition to the Full Bench, which is now before us. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass and may be stated thus:The revision petitioner is the husband. He suffered a decree dated 18-2-1972 in O.S. No. 191/71 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, filed by his wife (the respondent) for recovery of her maintenance On 22-9-1975 the petitioner filed EA N6.81...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-17-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Cal336
..... rejected by the executing court. the decision of the executing court was upheld by the first appellate court but on appeal, the high court accepted the contention of the tenant. on further appeal before the supreme court, the decision of the high court was affirmed. it was held by the supreme court that the legal fiction created by the retrospective operation of the statute the amended section of the delhi rent control act, 1958 must be held to form part of the said statute from the date of its enactment and in that view the ..... not be called in question in any court or tribunal or before any other authority on the ground that section 6 of the principal act did not provide for the payment of any interest on the purchase price for the period from the date of delivery of the undertaking to the date of payment of the amount.' 37. the aforesaid sections of the ordinance were reproduced in toto in the corresponding sections, of the indian electricity (uttar pradesh amendment and validation) act, 1975.38. learned advocate for the appellant also drew ..... the form of the general balance sheet.36. learned advocate also drew our attention to the amendment and validation acts promulgated by the state of uttar pradesh as follows : --the indian electricity (uttar pradesh amendment and validation) ordinance, 1975 section 3. in section 6 of the principal act, sub-sections (6) and (7) are hereby repealed with effect from sept. 5, 1959, and are re-enacted and shall be deemed to have been re-enacted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-26-1987
Reported in : 1988(2)Crimes196; 1987(14)ECC98; ILR1987Delhi554
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) With a view to prevent Shri KirpalMohan Virmani, the present petitioner, from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods Shri Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Government of India passed an order of his detention under the Cofeposa Act (hereinafter referred to as theAct) on 5/11/1986. The subjective satisfaction is based on the following circumstances : (2) On a specific information that truck No. Del 3124 is carrying Hashish concealed inside the machinery items, the officers of the Customs Preventive Collectorate, West Bengal succeeded in intercepting the truck at Mogra on 12/07/1986and apprehended its three occupants, S/Shri Joginder Singh,and Shiv Raj Singh. drivers and Ranjit Singh, cleaner. On detailed examination, it was found to be carrying two consignments comprising of 30 cases, containing 660 pieces of front and rear engine mounting. M/s. Northern Exports, 116 HariNagar, New Delhi, was the consigner. This machinery was meant for export to M/s. Naz...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-19-1987
Reported in : ILR1987Delhi120
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this judgment. I propose to decide four writ petitions being Criminal Writs Nos. 211,239, 281 and 283 of 1987 of our different petitioners. (2) These four petitioners were detained on the basis of four different orders passed on 1-4-1987 under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (for short the Act). The petitioners seek quisling of the detention orders and issuance, of a writ of hatexs corpus or any ether appropriate writ for their being set at liberty. (3) The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had information that Vijay Kumar (petitioner in Cr.W. 239/87) was engaged in receipt, storage and disposal of smuggled gold on a large scale. Surveillance was mounted on him and as a result on 11-3-1987 300 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each (34,995 gm) bearing foreign markings and of 999.0 (24 carats) purity were recovered. The gold valued over Rs. 92 lacs. Of these 100 gold biscuits were recovered from Uttam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-11-1987
Reported in : AIR1988SC752; (1988)68CTR(SC)174; [1988]171ITR254(SC); 1988(1)SCALE235; (1988)1SCC681; [1988]2SCR352
ORDER PASSED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF 1961 ACT--Is a completed assessment within s. 297(2)(i)--Claim for interest on refund under 1922 Act did not, therefore surviveHELD:An assessment would be `completed assesment' within s. 297(2)(i) if the ITO had passed the order of assessment prior to the coming into force of the 1961 Act. It is not possible to accept the contention that the matter fell within s. 297(2)(a) and not s. 297(2)(d)(i). The claim for interest on the refund of income-tax becomes wholly untenable. -O.R.M.M.SP SV. P. Panchanatham Chettiar v. CIT relied on. Income Tax Act 1961 s.297 M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, by the legal representatives of Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava, the unsuccessful plaintiff, is directed against the Judgment and decree, dated 14-2-1980 of the High Court of Delhi in First Appeal (O. S.) No. 17 of 1972 : [1983]141ITR836(Delhi) (Delhi) on its file, affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal dated, 28-7-1972 in Suit No. 372 of 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-25-1987
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1640; 1987(2)Crimes616; 1987(13)DRJ197
ORDER1. The petitioner Shri M. R. Jean Sala is a French national. He came to New Delhi from Kathmandu on 21-6-86. During his stay in India, he mostly remained in Srinagar, Kashmir. From there, he is alleged to have dispatched a consignment of 38 packages said to contain paper Machie boxes of different shapes and sizes to Calcutta for export by sea to Rotterdam Holland. The said consignment was purchased from one M/s. M. S. Doona & Sons, Srinagar for a total consideration of Rs. 64,700/-. 2. On 7-8-86, the petitioner went to Calcutta for the purpose of supervising and finalising the export of the said 38 packages. On 21-8-86, the shipping bill was presented to the Calcutta Customs for examination by the Customs House Clearing Agent M/s. Jeena & Company, Calcutta. During examination of the said consignment the Customs Officers selected two packages out of 38 for examination. On closer examination, it was observed that the bottoms of the paper Machie boxes were unusually heavier. On break...
Tag this Judgment!