Delhi Court November 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.
S.C. Malik Vs. Union of India, Through Director General of Supplies an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi211
ORDER1. This is an application filed by, S.C. Malik, herein called 'the petitioner' under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that the respondent Union of India, be directed to file in Court the arbitration agreement forming part of the contract, i.e. acceptance of tender No. Kan /1092-D / Kp-6 / 86 / Paod dated February 16, 1968 and the disputes and differences between the parties be referred to arbitration by an order of reference.2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Union of India that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application inasmuch as the contract was governed by the general conditions of contract contained in Form 68 (revised) which has the following Clause 20 (3) :-'20 (3) Jurisdiction of Courts. - The Courts of the place from where the acceptance of tender has been issued shall alone have jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of or in respect of the contract.'3. The following issue accordingly was framed to be tri...
N.D.M.C Vs. Inder NaraIn and ors.
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...
Harbans Singh Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi227
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Major Harbans Singh (Retired) against the respondent the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of defense, regarding his claim for 'disability pension'.2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 3rd May/21st December, 1947 from the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun. After joining the Indian Army, the petitioner served at various places and was promoted from time to time till he attained the rank of a substantive Major in the Indian Army. He was in field service in Jammu and Kashmir from 8th October, 1952 to 26th November, 1955, and in N.E.F.A from 12th December, 1959 to 17th December 1961.3. In December, 1961, he was commanding 71 Heavy Mortar Battery with Battery Headquarters located at Walong in N.E.F.A. While so, he applied for annual leave of 60 days, and the same was sanctioned for the period from 9th December, 1961 to 6th February 1962, by his Commanding Officer, Col. R.T.K. Foregard. He flew fr...
Said-ud-dIn Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi240
ORDER1. Can the High Court acting under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution review a finding of fact by a quasi judicial Tribunal? If so, what types of findings of fact on what grounds? What is the legal theory of such judicial review? These are some of the interesting questions raised by the otherwise simple facts of this case.2. The petitioner is the tenant of house NO. 1225, Gali Jaman Wali, Kalan Mahal, Delhi situated in a slum area of which the respondents 2 to 5 are the landlords. The landlords obtained an order for the eviction of the tenant from the above premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In view of Section 19(1)(b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) however such an order of eviction could not be executed by the landlords except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority under the Act. The landlords, thereforee, applied under Section 19(3) of the Act to the competent authority of such ...
Chander Prakash Vs. Sudesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi208; 7(1971)DLT244
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal is the husband, who had brought a petition for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against his wife, who is the respondent in this appeal. The decree for divorce was claimed on the ground that the respondent was living in adultery. The case was tried by Shri K. S. Sidhu, Additional District Judge, who found from the circumstances of the case that the respondent had left the appellant one day after the marriage and was living in adultery. He, thereforee, granted the decree, as claimed, by his judgment dated 25th September, 1967. On appeal to this court, Deshpande, J. held that adultery had not been established and thus reversed the decision of the trial court on this ground. However, the learned Single Judge granted a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion by his judgment dated 7th October, 1969. On the facts found, it was clear that the marriage took place on 16th January. 1966, and ...
Major Harbans Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1970
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi326
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This writ petition has been filed by Major Harbans Singh (Retired) against the respondent the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of defense, regarding his claim for 'disability pension'. (2) The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 3rd May/21st December, 1947, from the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun. After joining the Indian Army, the petitioner served at various places and was promoted from time to time till he attained the rank of a substantive Major in the Indian Army. He was in field service in Jummu and Kashmir from 8th October, 1952, to 26th November, 1955, and in N.E.F.A. from 12th December, 1959 to 17th December. 1961. (3) In December. 1961, he was commanding 71 Heavy Mortar Bat- tery with Battery Headquarters located at Walong in N.E.F.A. While so, he applied for annual leave of 60 days, and the same was sanc- tioned for the period from 9th December, 1961, to 6th February, 1962, by his Commanding Officer, Col. R.T.K. Foreg...
Tarif Singh Shanti Saroop Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, M ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi233
ORDER1. It will be convenient to dispose of three writ petitions by one judgment as the points involved there in are the same. Petition No. 262 was filed on February 29, 1968 by Tarif Singh. The other two petitions Nos. 393 and 704, are on behalf of Jitendra Bir Anand and Jagmohan Lal Sabharwal respectively and were filed on May 16, 1966 and August 2, 1968.2. On October 26th, 1962, the President of India, on being satisfied that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by external aggression, made a declaration to that effect in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution. Admittedly the proclamation of emergency was not revoked till January 10, 1968.3. An advertisement was published in the Tribune, a daily newspaper, on June 13, 1963 inviting applications fro grant of Emergency Commissions in the Regular Army. It was also mentioned in the advertisement that an officer granted an Emergency Commission may be considered ...
Edward Keventer(S) Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1970
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi75; [1971]81ITR126(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The assessed in this case is the well-known concern of Edward Keventer(S) Private Limited and the year of assessinent is 1958-59. (2) The assessed owned at one time (it is not known if it owns even today) 22.95 acres of land with buildings and machinery etc. in the D vicinity of Kitchner Road, New Delhi. The Government proposed to acquire the land for inclusion in the Diplomatic Enclave. The assessed objected but its objection was over-ruled and the land was notified for acquisition on 5-10-1951. The Collector drew up an award whereby the assessed was offered a sum of Rs. 34,36,660.00 as compensation. (3) According to the assessed the award was finalised on 13th October, g 1952 but when the assessed applied for its copy and later for inspection the award had not yet been finalised by the office of the collector. (4) On 5-1-1953 the assessed filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab lit Simla under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Collector made anothe...
Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Khushwaqat Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi164
1. Bhola Singh, the father of Ram Singh and Amar Singh appellants Nos. 1 and 2, was a tenant in house NO. 1313 Ward No. Viii, situated in Kucha Hiralal, Gali Kundewalan, Ajmere Gate, Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 67 per month, together with Rs. 6/7/- as house tax and Rs. 3/- as water tax, totalling Rs. 76/7/- per month. This house originally belonged to one Hira Lal, after whose death his son Khushawaqat Rai, respondent No. 1 claimed to be its owner. Bhola Singh appears to have started paying rent to Khnushwaqat Rai, to whom he paid all rents up to August 31, 1958. No rent was paid to him with effect from 1st September, 1958 to 30th June, 1959. Khushwaqat Rai respondent No. 1 had served on Bhola Singh, a notice of demand dated April 21, 1959 but there was no response. On July 22, 1959 respondent No. 1 filed a petition of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from September 6, 1958 to July 6, 1959. The tenant, Bhol...
Pratap Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi477
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1969, which has been preferred by the State against the acquittal of Kalmi Nand (38) and Karam Chand (40).(2) The appellants (the reference is to the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1969) Pratap Singh (21) and his younger brother. Bihari Lal (17) have been convicted under sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code, respectively, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu and Kinnaur Districts and sentenced as follows :- PRATAPSingh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in fault to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.(3) Bihari Lal has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.(4) The prosecution case is that Smt. Gulab Devi (Public Witness . 2) had settled down with Gulab Singh (the deceased in this case) about four ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »