Court : Delhi
Reported in : 36(1988)DLT217
..... aggarwal has been that the punjab preemption act, 1913 (for short 'the act') has since been repealed by the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973, and as such the suit was incompetent. ..... repeal of this act in punjab by the repealing act of 1973 would have no bearing on the applicability of the act to delhi. ..... he pointed out that by act x of 1960 of the punjab legislature section 16 has in fact been repealed as a whole and has been substituted by a provision creating a right only in a tenant to preempt the property held by him when the landlord desires to sell it. ..... in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint the plaintiffs did state that there was a custom in the locality that a co-sharer would have a preferential right to purchase the share of the other co-sharer and further the premises in question were situate in old city of delhi in daiwara, nai sarak within the boundary walls of old delhi where the customs of pre-emption had judicially been noticed and recognised and further that the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 was applicable to delhi. ..... punjab act x of 1960 however has not been extended to delhi and here the punjab pre-emption act of 1913, the act with which wearer concerned, still applies'. ..... the repeal of the act in punjab does not automatically repeal the act as in force in delhi. mr. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi135; ILR1972Delhi421
..... territories (laws) act, 1950 because the punjab preemption act 1913 was already in force in himachal pradesh and that the central government had no power to repeal or abrogate an existing law by extending the amendment to the parent act to delhi. ..... mathu ram : air1969delhi267 it was argued that the punjab preemption (amendment) act, 1960 could not be extended to himachal pradesh under section 2 of the union. ..... learned counsel for the petitioner shri ramesh chandra confined his g argument only to the following grounds of challenge viz:- (a)the co-operative societies act, 1912 already applied to delhi and, thereforee the central government had no power to extend the bombay co-operative societies act, 1925 to delhi in 1949 under section 7 of the delhi laws act, 1912; (b)the notification dated 8-1-1949 extending the bombay co- h operative societies act, 1925 to delhi modified section 73 of the said act stating that the co-operative societies act, 1912 in so far as it applied to delhi, was repealed. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi761
..... in the last mentioned authority the court observed that the question whether the property in dispute came within the definition of section 3 of the punjab preemption act was one of law, but the determination of this question depend upon whether the property formed part of the town of delhi or whether it was a village immovable ..... (6) in the punjab pre-emption act, section 15(a) reads as follows : '15.subject to the provisions of section 14, the right of preemption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest- (a) where the sale is by a sole owner or occupancy tenant ..... 20th may, 1958, the plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal, for pre-empting the same under clause (a) of section 15 of the punjab pre-emption act, 1 of 1913, as it stood amended prior to 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the act), in her capacity as a person entitled to succeed to the land on the assumption of the death of the bhumidar. ..... proposed to levy a house-tax on the owners of the building and lands within the municipality as provided by section 61 of the punjab municipal act and the proposal was accepted on 11th april, 1954. ..... under the punjab pre-emption act, 11 of 1905- the law which i have applied is the punjab pre-emption act of 1913, as amended from time to time except the last amendment of 1960 ..... ' the punjab alienation of land act has since been repealed, but the repeal does not affect the validity or the availability of the said definition for purposes of pre- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi154; 4(1968)DLT660
..... 9 in spite of the repeal of the punjab alienation of land act, 1900 and of a full bench decision of the punjab high court in uttam singh v. ..... since the sale in this case was in respect of a share out of the joint land by one of the co-sharers, the short question that falls for determination is the interpretation of section 15 (1)(b) clause thirdly of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 (punjab act 1 of 1913) as amended by punjab act no. ..... in regard to the effect of section 17, apart from the important fact that section 15 does nto in terms create any right of pre-emption claimable in the capacity of heirs, i am also extremely doubtful if the rule of succession governing the possible pre-emptors, clothed with the right of pre-emption under the punjab pre-emption act (hindus, muslims and christians etc. ..... first, because the claim of preemption is nto in terms retained in the persons entitled to pre-empt in their capacity as heirs, as was the case before the amendment of 1960, and secondly because i also find the continued retention in the act of sections 3 (4), 14, 23, 24, 29 and the concluding clause of s. ..... in the result, it must be held that the plaintiff had a superior right of preemption over the vendees and was en- titled to succeed. ..... in sec- corporation 15 (1) (b) thirdly the word 'or' has been used between two classes of pre-emptors and if i were to hold that they have been given a joint right of preemption, i must of necessity read the word 'or' as 'and'. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1981Delhi118; ILR1982Delhi525
..... the punjab pre-emption act does not apply to the state of delhi after it was repeated by repeal- ing act of 1973 ..... the wall ab which is a common wall; (2) that there are doors on the ground floor and in the first floor in the wall ab ; and (3) that there is a ventilator and an almirah in the common wall on the ground floor and that the above casementary rights gave the plaintiffs the right to pre-empt the sale under clause fifthly of section 16 of the punjab premption act. ..... , whether by the placing of the rafters and beams on the wall ab the plaintiffs acquired any easementary rights within the meaning of clause fifthly of section 16 of the punjab pre-emption act. ..... whether the punjab pre-emption act as applicable to delhi is un-constitutional for the reasons in the written ..... the pre-cnipti^n is claimed on ground fifthly of action 16 of the punjab pre-emption act ..... the rule contained in the cited authorities it would follow that the owners of both the tenements that is 2777 and 2778 have the right to the use of the full wall ab, the only prohibition being that the user of the wall should not interfere with the enjoyment of the wall by the ..... -wall held in co-ownership is to be treated as a structure which is to be utilised for the common benefit and convenience of both the owners of the tenements which it separates; each one of them is entitled to the full user of the wall the only restriction being that the user of the wall should not interfere with the enjoyment of the wall by the other. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi258; ILR1976Delhi506
..... since the procedure of investigation into the acts of the petitioner prior to 1st january, 1974 has to be governed by section 19(2) of the repealed act, the impunged notice of 31st may 1974 issued under section 33(2) of the repealing act is ultra vines for the following reasons, namely : (a) section 33(2) authorises action there under only for the purposes of the 1973 act but not for the purposes of the 1947 act; (b) the notice had to be issued under section 19(2) of the repealed act in view of section 31(3) of the repealing act and section 6 of the general clauses act; and (e) the deputy director, even if he is assumed to be an officer not below the rank of a chief enforcement ..... officer, was not competent to issue such a notice under section 19(2) of the repealed act. ..... in state of punjab v. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT705
..... it was, on the above basis, argued that since the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973 has been repealed, the proposed detention of the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the said act does not arise and is, thereforee, liable to be quashed.9. ..... the repeal of the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973 is not accompanied by a corresponding repeal or amendment of provisions of cofeposa so as to render any detention impermissible even if the person concerned is seen to be acting in a manner prejudicial to the augmentation of country's foreign exchange resources. ..... the detention order as rightly pointed out by counsel for the respondents is not made under the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973 so as to affect the validity of any order passed under the same by reason of its repeal. ..... what was all the same argued was that the order for detention was rendered bad in view of the repeal of foreign exchange regulation act, 1973. ..... in the later mentioned decision, the supreme court was examining the correctness of an order passed by the punjab & haryana high court quashing an order of detention passed by the concerned authority under the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (cofeposa). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi217
..... sachar laid great stress on his contention that section 8(2) of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913 itself was ultra virus of the constitution in asmuch as it lays down no guiding principles turn the state government to issue notifications and gives uncanalized power to the executive to issue notifications to the effect that no right of pre-emption shall exist in respect of any local area or any land or any property or class of land. ..... sachar was that if the impugned provision was allowed to stand, the state government could virtually repeal the act by issuing notifications making the provisions inapplicable in the state, applying exemptions to various lands or districts in successive notifications and this would amount to excessive delegation of legislative power. ..... (2) the provincial government may declare by notification that in any local area with respect to any land or property or class of land or property or with respect to any sale or class of sales, no right of preemption or only such limited right as the provincial government may specify, shall exist. ..... '(9) the result of the above notification was that no right of preemption could be exercised by co-sharers in respect of a sale made in the district of kangra for land covered by section 15(6). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1983)36CTR(Del)355; ILR1983Delhi708; [1983]143ITR551(Delhi)
..... it is, thereforee, clear that though the punjab electricity act was repealed the right that had accrued to the assesses company to claim interest as well as the liability of the punjab state elecricity board to pay interest to the assessed in terms of section 4 survived. ..... the arbitrator-applied his mind to the issue and he has also specifically recorded that he has taken the note of the provision under the punjab electricity act as well as the repealing act. ..... commissioner of income tax : [1973]87itr22(mad) or of the punjab and haryana high court in commissioner of income tax v. dr. ..... though the tribunal had observed that the interest must be taken to have accrued from year to year, the high court had only to hold that, for the assessment year 1973-74, only the interest attributable to the previous year could be said to have accrued on the mercantile system followed by the assesses. 12. ..... cit : [1973]87itr22(mad) : narula's case just referred to, relates to the subsequent stage after the high court and the supreme court had disposed of earlier proceedings in which the very taxability of interest amounts was challenged. ..... 1,09,492 received towards interest during the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1973-74 which commenced on 18-11-1971. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR159(Delhi); 132(2006)DLT588; 2006(91)DRJ618
..... - (1) notwithstanding anything in the usury laws repeal act, 1855, where, in any suit to which this act applies, whether heard ex parte or otherwise, the court has reason to believe:(a) that the interest is excessive; or(b) that the transaction was, as between the parties thereto, substantially unfair, the court shall exercise all or any of the following powers, namely, shall -(i) re-open the transaction, take an account between the parties, and relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of any excessive interest;(ii) notwithstanding any agreement, purporting to close previous dealings ..... it is the contention of the judgment debtors that commercial transactions between private persons in the state of delhi are governed by the usurious loans act, 1918 as amended and made applicable to the state of delhi by the punjab relief of indebtedness act. ..... seshadri : [1973]3scr691 wherein the supreme court held that if a decree is void it is not executable and the executing court will have to adjudicate upon the plea based on relevant materials. .....
Tag this Judgment!