Delhi Court October 1970 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Raj Enginbering Works Private Ltd., Ajmere Gate, Delhi Vs. E. Krishna ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1970
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT121
Rangarajan, J.(1) In spite of service the respondents 2 &3(the workman and the Engineering work's Union) did not file any return, the first respondent being the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, actual date notice having been sent for the hearing on 18th September 1970 and the case having appeared on the cause list since then. (2) The workman concerned (0m Parkash) was dismissed after the inquiry by the management on a charge of having deceived the company by charging Rs. 10 50 paise for four pitchers purchased from the bazar though he had paid a lesser amount. The workman had also submitte original bill of Rs. 10.50 paise as the cost of the pitchers and fitcy paise for cartage. When an Indus:rial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribuial Delhi, an award (copy of which is Annexure H to the petition) was passed setting aside his dismissal and directing his reinstatement, but without an emoluments or compensation for the period between the date of dismissal and ...
Ranjit Singh and anr. Vs. the Assessing Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1970
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT116; [1972]29STC499(Delhi)
Parkash Narain, J. (1) The petitioners in this case pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the assessments of sale-stax made by respondent No. 1 and pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition or mandamus restraining the respondents from Realizing the tax due under the said two assessments which were made on 24. 10. 1959. They contend that the sales-tax sought to be recovered from them is not payable inasmuch as the assessments have been made against a dissolved partnership firm which is not permitted by law and the sales tax, if any, payable on the turnover of the relevant period was the responsibility of one Manohar Lal who took over all the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm on its dissolution of which the two petitioners and Manohar Lal were partners till 10. 3. 1957. The partnership firm used to carry on work under the name and style of M/s. Juginder Pal Rarjit Singh and comprise...
R.C. Sood and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India Through Secretary, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi170
ORDER1. These two writ petitioners are directed against the same Award under the Land Acquisition Act and they have, thereforee, been heard together. They may be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioner in writ petition No. 792 of 1968 is M/s. R.C. Sood & Company (P) Ltd., and the petitioner in writ petition No. 13 of 1969 is M/s. Gulmarg Co-operative House Building Society Limited. The respondents in both the writ petitions are the same, namely, (1) the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (2) Delhi Administration through Chief Secretary, (3) the Collector, Delhi and (4) the Lt. Governor, Delhi.3. M/s. R.C. Sood & Company is the owner (Bhoomidar) of certain land comprised in various Khasra Nos. mentioned in the writ petition No. 792 of 1968 measuring about 109 bighas and 7 bids was and situate in the revenue estate of village Tigri, siub-Tehsil Maharauli in the Union Territory of Delhi. m/s. Gulmarg cooperative House Building Society is the o...
Mohinder Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi854
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment will also disposeof Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1969 which has beenpreferred by Kartar Singh, who was convicted under section 364 read with section 34 of the Indian PenalCode and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for fiveyears but was acquitted of the other charges framedagainst him under section 302 read with section 34 section 201 read with section 34 and under section 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by thelearned Additional sessions Judge Delhi (2) The appellants Mohinder Singh, Plara Singh andKundan Singh (in criminal appeal No. 125 of 1969),who will hereinafter be called the appellants unless otherwise indicated.. have all been convicted under section302 read with section 34, section 325 read with section 34 and section 364 read with section 34 of the IndianPenal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, five years and two years respectivelyon each of the above counts : the sentences againsteach of those accu...
Shanti Rani Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT183
V.D. Misra, J. (1) Shrimati Shsnti Rani, the landlady, has filed these two revisions (Nos. 279-D and 280- D of 184 1953) against the Judgment of the District Judge. Delhi, upholding the judgment and onder of the Subordinite Judge fixing the standard rent of the premsses. (2) Shrimati Shanti Rani had bought House No 2883 Har Dhian Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in February 1973 for a sum of, Rs. 5850.00 and odd. The house being in a dilapidated condition it was demolished and the entire building was reconstructed in 1945 46. Thereafter the landlady continued to make additions to it The rooms on the ground floor were meant for residence and at one time had been let out for that purpose. Somtime in 1956 the Delhi Improvement Trust declared the locality, in which the house was situated, as a business centre Thereafter, the landlady converted three rooms on the ground-floor into shops by opening their doors on the road and making other necessary addition and alterations. One of the shop...
Surat Singh and ors. Vs. S.R. Bakshi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi133
ORDER1. It is one facet of the natural justice - right to a hearing embodied in sub-r (11) of R. 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the Ccs (CCA) Rules) - which comes up for consideration mainly by way of statutory construction in these two writs petitions, namely, Civil writs 670 and 717 of 1969.2. The four petitioners were Sorters in the Railway Mail Service at Delhi. The first four respondents are the concerned departmental officials, the fifth one being the Union of India. The petitioners were suspended by an order dated 5th October, 1968, On 12-12-1968 charge sheets accompanied by a statement of allegations against them were served on the petitioners who were asked to file the written statement in defense within ten days. The charges were that the petitioners had been order by Respondent No. 4 parbhatilal about 01-05 hours on 5-10-1968 to dispose of mails from New Delhi RMS/3 dated 4-10-1968, X-3 out dated 4-10-196...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›