Delhi Court March 1968 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1968 Page 2 of about 14 results (0.019 seconds)iqbal Rai Vs. Ram Partap and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 5(1969)DLT31
I. D. Dua, C.J. (1) In January, 1958, Iqbal Rai applied for fixation of Standard rent of a portion of a single storeyed building in Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He stated that he was a tenant under the respondent landlords at Rs. 90.00 per month from and July 1957 but the agreed rent was exorbitant. This application was contested and the learned Saborninate Judge 1st Class, by his order dated 24th November 1959, fixed the standard rent at Rs. 600.00 per annum which comes to Rs. 50.00 per month. This was fixed with effect from 30th December, 1957. (2) Ram Partap Bhandari and S.N.Bhalla, defendants in the trial Court, took the matter on appeal before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, who iaised the standard rent to Rs.75.00 per month by his order dated 14th February, 1981. The present revision against that order presented in 1961 has come up for final disposal today, about 7 years latter. (3) The learned counsel for the petitioner tenant has very strongly argued that the order of the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Teja Singh and Co. Vs. Fertilizer Corporation of India, Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1968Delhi188; ILR1968Delhi75
(1) These three appeals (F. A.Os. Nos. 54 D, and 65 D of 1964 ) and three revisions (C. Rs. Nos.59 D, 60 D of 61 D of 1964) have been placed before us pursuant to the order of reference dated 26-10-1967. Two questions, as mentioned in the referring order, fall for our decision : (1) whether under Section 16 of the arbitration Act No. 10 of 1940 (hereinafter called the Act'), it is open to the Court to remit a part of an award and (2) whether in such a case appeal lies under section 39(1)(vi) of the Act. Incidentally the third question which may have to be answered is, if no appeal is held to lie in such a case, can this Court entertain a revision against such an order. It may be pointed out that by way of abundant caution, the appellant has also preferred three revisions so that in case appeals are held to be incompetent, no prayer need be made to convert those appeals into revisions may themselves be decided on the merits, if held competent. (2) All the three cases, it may be observed...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Nath Harbans Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1969CriLJ551
ORDERI.D. Dua, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code, for the transfer of the case State v. Pran Nath and tohers from the Court of Shri K.N. Joshi, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, to some toher Court of competent jurisdiction. Several grounds have been taken in the application, but I do nto consider it necessary to refer to them in detail. In the comments dated 24.2.1968 submitted by the learned Magistrate, he has stated in paragraph 22 that the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings in the case which is evident from the fact that it was instituted in the Court on 30.8.1966 and it is over one year and five months that the Courts were nto able to frame charges in the case for such a long period. This, according to the learned Magistrate, is due to the delaying tactics on the part of the accused. I have been taken through the record of the case relating to the adjournments, by the counsel for the petitioner and I am constrained to observe that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Siya Ram Sharma Vs. Director General, Supplies and Disposalsand ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT2
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The petitioner who was employed as an Examiner Stores (Engineering) in the office of Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi, was dismissed by an order dated 3/6/1967 passed by the Deputy Director General (Administration) in the Director General of Supplies and Disposals New Delhi and confirmed on appeal by an order dated 7/8/1967 by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals as a result of an Inquiry held by the then Director of Inspection in the office of the said Directorate. By means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of the said orders and the inquiry which led to the making of the said orders. For simplicity, the terms Director General of Supplies and Disposals, Deputy Director General of Supplies and Disposals and Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals will hereafter be referred to as the Director General, Deputy Director General and Directorate only.(2) The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!