Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-10-1970
Reported in : 6(1970)DLT276
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constition against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 17th March 1970 in suit No. 320 of 1969 where by he dismissed the application made by the petitioner and another (asplaintiffs) under Order 39 Rr. 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code rest-aining the defendants in the suit from interfering with their possession of the property described in the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge held on the materials before him that the plaintiffs were not primafacie in possession and found no case to issue an ad-interim injuntion in their favor. Admittedly an appeal lies against that order and an appeal has not yet been preferred. This Court was moved under Article 227 of the Constitution, without filing an appeal against the said order, which fact was over looked when this petition was admitted and interim stay ordered Shri R. K. Sharma along with Mr. H. S. Yadav entered apperance on behalf of the defendants ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-1970
Reported in : 6(1970)DLT317
Om Prakash, J. (1) The main question, in this writ petition filed by forty-five stall-holders of village Pandoh,Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, is whether section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Himachal Act), is vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances in which this question has arisen are as under :-(2) The Deputy Commissioner, Mandi had issued notices to the petitioners to demolish their stalls and to vacate the sites there under as they had illegally constructed the stalls on Government lands. The petitioners filed a writ petition, challenging the validity of the notices on various grounds. One of the grounds was that Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1958, under which according to the petitioners the Duputy Commissioner appeatred to have initiated action against them was unconstitutional. In the return, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that action agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-24-1970
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi267
ORDER1. The question that arises in this petition is whether Katha is included within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and whether Item A-21 of Appendix B of Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) is ultra views of the Act and the Constitution of India.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayer is made for a writ restraining the respondents. Union of India and the Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi, from interfering with the petitioners' trade of Katha (Catechu) and from enforcing the restrictions laid down in Item A-21 of Appendix B under Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act.3. The petitioners are members of the Katha Dealers Association, Delhi and they are commission agents and wholesale merchants of the raw material from which Katha of various qualities for different purposes is manufactured. It is alleged that Katha represents two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-30-1970
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi306
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) This judgment would dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 141 and 158 of 1970 which have been filed by New Delhi Municipal Committee and Delhi Development Authority respectively, and are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge granting some reliefs in a writ petition in favor of Inder Narain and four other respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents.) Respondents I to 3 are the lessees of an area of land measuring about 7.070 square yards, situate at 23, Curzon Road, New Delhi. The said respondents carry on business in partnership under the name and style of Lokenath Ramsarandas respondent No. 4. They also formed a partnership in 1967 under the name and style of Lokenath & Co. (Construction) respondent No. 5 for the purpose of constructing a multi-storeyed building on the above-mentioned land and for disposing of blocks therein on ownership basis. As 23, Curzon Road, is within the jurisdiction of New Delhi Municipal Committee (herein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-29-1970
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT270
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The petitioner seeks a direction quashing the order of the Lieutenant-Governor dated 7th July, 1970 appointing Shri Bhagwan Singh (fourth respondent) as the President of the Municipal Committee, Paonta, under proviso to section 19(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act (19 of 1968), which was passed in the following circumstances.(2) Under the Punjab Small Towns Act, 1921 a Small Town Committee for Paonta Sahib was formed, five persons including the petitioner and the fourth 'respondent having been elected to the said committee on 28th February, 1968 On 3rd February, 1989 the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act of 1968, which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Act', came into force By virtue of section 285 (1) (a) of the Act all the small towns declared as such under the Punjab Small Towns Act, 1921 were deemed to be municipal of the second class within the meaning of the Act.(3) On 6th May, 1970 the Himachal Pradesh Administration, acting under section 13 and 21 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-29-1970
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT311
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant judgment-debtor and it raises an interesting question of law. The material facts of the case giving rise to the revision are in a narrow compass. Shadi Ram and Ram Sawarup are the owners and landlords of the property in which the petitioner before me has been the tenant. The respondents instituted a civil suit for eviction of the peti tioner under Section 13 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 on various grounds mentioned in the plaint, one of them being non-payment of rent. On 26th July, 1955, a compromise decree was passed against the petitioner-tenant in favor of the landlord directing the payment of arrears of rent due by certain date and in default, the petitioner was lia, ble to eviction. Eventually the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the decree and became liable to eviction. On or about 20th May, 1960 the landlord owners assigned the decree in favor of the respondent before me by a registered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-11-1970
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi92
Deshpande, J. (1) The nature of the obligation of a person enjoying benefit of a non-gratitutious act under Section 70 of the Contract Act in the context of the terms and conditions of Government contracts and, the manner and the quantum of proof there under by the Government are some questions which have arisen for consideration in this appeal.(2) The respondent-contractor entered into ten contracts with the appellant-Union of India on various dates from 20-11-1947 to 7-3-1952. The contractor was to manufacture biscuits and deliver the same to the Government. The Government was to supply to the contractor commodities as raw materials-namely, Atta', 'Sugar' and 'Hydrogenated oil'. These raw materials were to be used by the contractor in making the biscuits. The relevant terms and conditions of the contracts were as follows :- 1.The general conditions of contract embodied in Form No. W.S.B. 133 in so far as they were not at variance with the conditions of these ten contracts were to app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-29-1970
Reported in : [1971]79ITR63(Delhi)
Hardy, J.1. The following two questions have been referred by theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench B) to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act:' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order is in contravention of the provisions of sections 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy, of penalty under Section 271(I)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified ' 2. The assessed is a registered firm dealing in timber. For the assessment year 1960-61, it filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 12,225. In the course of assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer noticed cash credit entries totalling up to a figure of Rs. 17,500 in certain accounts and that they were shown to have been squared up. He also noticed an account in the name of karkhana at ledger folio 22 showing a debit of Rs. 36,900. This was stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-13-1970
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi606
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This writ petition was filed by M. Chowdhury praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the order of the Collector of Stamps, Delhi, No. D.58/61, dated 13/15-4-1961, whereby the Collector ordered the realisation of stamp duty of Rs. 150.00 with penalty of Rs. 1,500.00 from the petitioner, and also for the issuance of a direction prohibiting the Collector from Realizing the said amounts. (2) Suit No. 177 of 1960, Nawabzada Ghalib Husan Khan. v. Chowdhwy, on the file of the Court of the Commercial SubJudge, Delhi, was decreed on 3-12-1960. The plaintiff, Nawabzada Ghalib Hasan Khan, had filed a document (Annexure B) in the suit. After the suit was decreed on 3rd December, 1960, the Commercial Sub-Judge impounded the document on 25th February, 1961, under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, and forwarded it to the Collector of Stamps, Delhi, on the same day under section 38(2) of the Act for action under section 40 of the said Act. As the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-1970
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi143
ORDER1. The petitioners have been running a factory from 1947 onwards for the manufacture of wire-betting rolls, wire netting, wire gauge, wire cloth and jaali made from G. I. Wires of different sizes largely imparted from abroad. Respondent No. 1 is the Regional Provident Funds Commission (hereinafter called the Commissioner) who is to implement the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 framed by the Government under the Act (hereinafter called the Scheme). Section 1(3)(a) of the Act makes it applicable to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industr specified in Schedule I to the Act in which twenty or more persons are employed. Section 4 of the Act empowered the Central Government to add other industries to Schedule I. The importance of Schedule I lies in the fact that the application of the Act depends entirely on the particular industry being covered by an entry in the...
Tag this Judgment!