Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1977 Page 48 of about 475 results (0.016 seconds)

Jan 27 1977 (HC)

Man Mohan Tuli and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-27-1977

Reported in : ILR1977Delhi643

h.l. anand, j.(1) these petitions under article 226 of the constitution of india raise a number of interesting questions as to the nature and incidents of terminal tax in the context of the rather unusual location of immovable property, consisting of godowns, which are situated at the delhi-u.p, border in such a manner that while the only entrance to the property and a part of the built area is within the territorial limits of the state of u.p., and within the local area of the ghaziabad nagar palika, a substantial part of the property falls within the territorial limits of union territory of delhi. (2) the petitions were filed in the following circumstances. manmohan tuli, a resident of delhi, owns a piece of land situated on the grand trunk road near the 6th mile stone from delhi to ghaziabad beyond delhi-u.p, border. the land is surrounded in the south and west by the territory of u.p. and on the other two sides by the union territory of delhi. on the aforesaid land the owner built a number of godowns apparently at the instance of and for the benefit of certain road transport organisations having inter-state operations for the carriage of goods and some industrial houses having national marketing channels as a possible site for transhipment cum sorting out centre with a view to rationalise transport operations, save time, and reduce costs. the godowns are built on the land in such a manner that the only opening to the building is from the g.t. road, which is within the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 1977 (HC)

J.P. Gupta and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-28-1977

Reported in : 13(1977)DLT363

h.l. anand, j. (1) by this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioners, executive engineers (civil), in the delhi water supply & sewerage disposal undertaking, for short, the undertaking, of the municipal corporation of delhi, for short, the corporation, stake their claim to superior seniority in the grade of executive engineers over respondents 6 to 14 and seek a declaration with regard to their consequential right to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of superintending engineer on the basis of revised .seniority. the petition was filed in the following circumstances.(2) petitioners nos. 1 and 2 joined the undertaking as assistant engineers on march 2, 1960, and august 10, 1961, respectively. petitioner no. 3 joined the corporation as assistant engineer (civil) on august 30, 1961, and his services were subsequently transferred to the undertaking by an order made on june 30, 1962. it appears that prior to their appointments as assistant engineers, all the petitioners were working as assistant engineers in different government departments/organizations. petitioner no.1 was working in that capacity in the hindustan chemicals & fertilizers, a government of india undertaking, from may 13, 1958 to march 1, 1960. petitioner no. 2 was working as assistant engineer in the agra municipal corporation from september 19, 1960 to august 6, 1961, and petitioner no. 3 was working in that capacity in the u.p. irrigation department between .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1977 (HC)

Sheochand Ram Prasad Vs. Savitri Devi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-23-1977

Reported in : 1978RLR71

d.k. kapur, j. (1) suit premises is a room in a residential building it was being used as a godown by petitioner. landlady's husband was an employee of mcd and was allotted a quarter. his allotment was cancelled and he sued petitioner u/s 14 a of rent act. tenant sought leave to defend on the ground that premises was not residential permission was refused and he approached high court.] judgment, para 4 onwards is :- (2) thus, the conflict between the two parties was whether the property in question could be deemed to be residential property or, whether it was non-residential property. it is the common case of both the parties that the property is in fact used as a godown and from the plan filed in the case, seems to be entirely suited as a godown. still, it is possible for even property which has been let for non- residential purposes to be deemed to be residential property within the meaning of section 14a of the act. (3) learned counsel for the petitioner stated that section 14a is not available for evicting tenants who are occupying non- residential premises. counsel for the respondent states that the property is not non- residential and is in fact residential. i think, these contentions clearly raise a question of fact which requires to be ascertained on evidence and should normally entitle the tenant leave to defend the claim. (4) learned counsel for the respondent relies on the judgment of the supreme court in busching schmitz p. ltd v. p. t. menghani : [1977]3scr312 , .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1977 (HC)

Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mount Road Ii Divi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-08-1977

Reported in : [1978]41STC41(Mad)

ismail, j.1. the matter relates to the assessment year 1968-69. the petitioners were finally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of rs. 7,92,92,517.87 and rs. 6,92,51,009.38 respectively by the joint commercial tax officer, mount road ii division, in his proceedings dated 31st december, 1969. the taxable turnover included a sum of rs. 1,90,112 relating to the fitting of rubber tyres on metal tank wheels and top rollers for the heavy vehicles factory, avadi, assessed at 12 per cent. this amount was included in the taxable turnover returned by the dealers themselves. the petitioners did not file an appeal objecting to the assessment of any portion of the turnover. on 23rd december, 1970, the petitioners addressed the assessing officer requesting to revise the assessment for 1968-69 deleting the turnover of rs. 1,90,112 and also to revise the assessment for 1967-68 in respect of similar turnover. the joint commercial tax officer, mount road ii, madras, by his proceedings dated 26th february, 1971, informed the petitioners that the assessments made for 1967-68 and 1968-69 could not be revised at that stage as final orders had already been passed. the petitioners approached the assessing authority obviously under section 55 of the tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the act, seeking a modification of the order. after the assessing officer refused to interfere with the original assessment order, the petitioners approached the deputy commissioner, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1977 (HC)

Sm. Sima Rani Mohanti Vs. Puspa Rani Pal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-13-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Cal140

m.m. dutt, j.1. this appeal is directed against order no. 8 dated nov. 3, 1973 of the learned additional district judge, second court, alipore dismissing the appellant's application for revocation of the probate of the will, alleged to have been executed by one binapani ghose.2. it is the case of the appellant sima rani mohanti that the said binapani ghose by a will dated sept. 19, 1966 bequeathed her property, which is a half share in premises no. 98a/h/10, suren sarkar road, beliaghata, calcutta to the appellant. she filed an application for the grant of probate of the said will but she could not proceed with the same as she came to know that the respondent no. 1 basanta kumar sen, who was the owner of the other half share of the said premises, had propounded a will, alleged to have been executed by the said binapani ghose on sept. 18, 1966 and had obtained probate of the same. thereupon the appellant filed the application for revocation of the grant of probate to the said will which was propounded by the respondent no. 1.3. in her application, the appellant challenged the genuineness of the said will in respect of which the probate was granted. indeed, it is her case that the probate will is a forged one. she further complains that a citation should have been issued to her by the said basanti kumar sen.4. the present respondent no. 2, who is the purchaser of the said premises from basanta kumar sen, opposed the application for revocation. it was contended on her behalf .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //