Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-18-1983
Reported in : 1983RLR642
Prakash Narain, J.(1) As the main plank of the arguments, addressed on behalf of the petitioners, is the decision of the Supreme Court in Lic v. D.J. Bahadur : (1981)ILLJ1SC , we may first consider that case. A writ petition u/Art 226 of the Constitution had been filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging a notice dt. 6.5.78 issued by Lic u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and a notification dt. 26.5.78, issued u/s 11(2) of the Act by the Central Gov. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court resulting in an appeal being filed by Lic in the Supreme Court. Another similar petition was pending in the Calcutta High Court which was transferred to the S.C. Both these matters were disposed of together. The challenge before the Allahabad and the Calcutta High Court, was preferred by Class Iii and Class Iv employees who had contended that the impugned order and notification amounted to changing their conditions of service to their detriment vis-a-vis payment to them of bonus to whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-02-1983
Reported in : [1985(51)FLR260]; (1984)ILLJ438Del
Sachar, J.1. This is a batch of letters Patent Appeals and Civil Writ Petitions. Apart from certain special facts in each case which we shall mention later on, the common point which arises in all these appeals and writ petitions relates to whether an employee of Delhi Municipal Corporation working on DESU side if suspended pending a departmental enquiry or during the pendency of investigation or enquiry on criminal charges is entitled to be paid full wages as urged by the workman respondent or only the subsistence allowance, as claimed by the appellant Management. We shall take the facts from L.P.A. 107 of 1977. 2. The respondent workman remained under suspension from 9th June, 1970 to 31st December, 1974. He thereafter moved the Labour Court under S. 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act claiming the full wages for the period he was under suspension. The Delhi Municipal Corporation resisted plea amongst others on the ground that only subsistence allowance was payable in terms of Regula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-21-1983
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT204; 1983(5)DRJ298; 1983RLR656
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellant was employed as a doctor with the Delhi Cantonment Board and was in occupation of the disputed premises belonging to the said Board. She retired in 1971 but did not vacate the premises. The Board filed an eviction application which was allowed by the Addl. Controller on 16-2 1982. Her appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 10-1-1983. Hence, this second appeal.(2) The only point raised in this appeal is whether the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applies to the premises in question or whether the Public.. Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, applies to them. Under the definition given in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 'public premises' exclude premises belonging to a local authority. The question, thereforee, that falls for consideration is whether the Cantonment Board is a local authority. According to clause (31) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, local authority m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-14-1983
Reported in : (1983)4ITD120(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a HUF of which Shri S.S. Kanwar is the karta. The previous year for the assessment year 1971-72 ended on 31-3-1971. The assessee filed a return of income on 27-9-1971 declaring income at Rs. 98,711. A revised return was filed on 14-3-1974 declaring income at Rs. 1,00,490. The gross income from dividend amounted to Rs. 92,638 and the income from the shares of Bharat Steel Tubes amounted to Rs. 49,066 in respect of which exemption was claimed under Section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act, on 25-3-1974, the ITO allowed deduction under Section 80K to the extent of Rs. 49,066. The assessee had received interest of Rs. 17,032 against which he claimed interest of Rs. 31,327 out of which Rs. 30,062 was paid to First National City Bank and Rs. 1,265 was paid to Life Insurance Corporation. The assessee had purchased shares of the value of Rs. 3,07,350 of Bharat Steel Tubes by taking initial loans from Union B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-29-1983
Reported in : ILR1984Delhi214
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This is a petition under the proviso to section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (the 'Act'). It seeks to have revised an order for recovery of possession made by Mr. Dinesh Dayal, the 4th Additional Rent Controller.(2) The petitioner is Waryam Singh Duggal, the aggrieved tenant. He is a building contractor. The respondent is Savitri Devi, the wife of Shri Dheram Pal. She is the owner of the house at 2114, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. This is a two and a half storeyed house. Excepting one room, the tenant has the entire ground floor. The landlady has that one room on the ground floor, the entire first floor, and the barsati. There are two garages. One is with the tenant, and the other with the landlady, there are also two servants' quarters. They are in the possession of other tenants. I will .give more details about the accommodation a little later.(3) The order for recovery of possession was made under section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was held: (i) that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-31-1983
Reported in : (1983)LC439DTri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed a Revision Application before the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act), as it existed before its amendment by the Finance Act, 1980 (No. 2 of 1980), which stands transferred under the provisions of Section 131-B ibid to the Appellate Tribunal to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The appellants imported a consignment 'Air Dryer MA 1000-180-207 E Electric Heater and Drive Motor for 400 V, 50 HZ'. The Bill of Entry was presented in the Import Department of the Bombay Custom House on 17-10-77 when the goods were assessed under Heading No. 84.59(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and duty levied at 60%+15% Basic Customs duty and Auxiliary duty respectively. The appellants paid the Customs duty as well as auxiliary duty as per this assessment on 21-11-1977.3. It appears that by notification No. 214-Customs dated 15-10-1977, duty under Sub-heading (1) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-25-1983
Reported in : AIR1984Delhi106; 23(1983)DLT345; 1983RLR695
Sultan Singh, J. 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') by the heirs of the deceased is for enhancement of compensation. The other two appeals F.A.O. No. 137 of 1974 and F.A.O. No. 174 of 1974 by the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle are for the dismissal of the application for compensation filed under Section 110-A of the Act. This judgment will dispose of the three appeals.2. On 15th May, 1968 Laxman Dutt Pathak, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of the other appellants died in an accident with Truck No. PNR 5057 on the road in front of Government Higher Secondary School, Karala, Delhi. On 14th June, 1968 his widow, minor sons, daughter and mother of the deceased filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and interest. They have alleged that Mr. Pathak on 15th May, 1968 was going in a bus from Delhi to Karala and at about 8.20 A.M. along with others he got down from the bus i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-26-1983
Reported in : ILR1984Delhi741; 1984LabIC108; (1983)IILLJ441Del
..... insurance co. v. a.a. nathan 1981 lab. i.c. 1076]. (19) in my opinion council is a public authority within the meaning of art 226 as well as an 'authority' within the meaning of art. 12 of the constitution. the act has established a body corporate by the name of indian nursing council under section 4 of the act. it is a statutory corporation ..... told that it is an inquiry under rule 14 of the central civil service (classification, control and appeal) rules, applicable to her. (66) what is the point of given someone a right to be heard while dining to him the right to be heard ..... defend. she pointed out to the president and the enquiry officer that the proposed enquiry was illegal. (43) a responsible public body like the council acted in excess of its powers. it usurped the functions of the executive committee. its action was ultra ..... which the statute confers on her. it is thereforee right that, on an interpretation of the act, the court should declare her rights. (vine v. national dock labour board 1956 all e.r. 939. (81) the common. law was inadequate. there ..... act in 1947. the council was created. it has a corporate personality. corporate personality is a device to achieve a collective purpose the purpose of formulating educational standards. the act is in direct line with nightingale's efforts to improve the nursing profession. the act combines hopes for the future with interest in the past of nightingale era. on the council there are representatives of academic and intellectual life .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-24-1983
Reported in : 24(1983)DLT383
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.1982 whereby the eviction petition of the respondent owner was allowed and the eviction order was passed. The respondent filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. In paragraph 18 (a) of the petition, it was alleged : 'That the tendency premises are bona fide required by the petitioner for herself and for the members of her family, dependent upon her for accommodation and otherwise also. The petitioner has no other suitable residential accommodation for herself and the members of her family. The petitioner is the owner/landlord of the disputed tenancy premises. The tenancy premises had been let out to the respondent for residential purpose'. (2) That the petitioner's family comprised of herself, her husband, one married daughter, one unmarried daughter, one unmarried son and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-01-1983
Reported in : 1984(6)DRJ273
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The Delhi Transport Corporation) which is the successor of Delhi Transport Undertaking, has filed this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent seeking setting aside of the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge on 28th May, 1976, in F.A.O. No. 94 of 1973, whereby the quantum of damages awarded to the legal representatives of Shri RamPartap Pandey, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, was increased from Rs. 22,717.00 to Rs. 95,000.00 .(2) The facts are not disputed. Ram Partap Pandey died as a result of a motor vehicle accident on 10th November, 1967, at 5.15 P.M. on Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. The bus which was involved in the accident, belonged to the Delhi Transport Undertaking. It was being driven by Shri Dayal Singh. The parents, widow and five daughters of the. deceased filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for an award of sum of rupees two lacs as compensation. The Tribunal, however, awarded a total sum of Rs. 22,717...
Tag this Judgment!