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.
Devi Parshad Mathur Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1970
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT112
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) On April 30, 1955 Shri C. L. Chadha, Senior Accounts Officer. Foreign Traffic Accounts, Western Railway, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, imposed the penalty of withholding of increments for two years with cumulative effect on Shri Devi Prashad Mathur, a railway employee. Shri Mathur, who is a clerk grade I, in the office of the Senior Accounts Officer, filed an appeal to the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Traffic, Accounts. Western Railway, Ajmer. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on July 5, 1965. The order dismissing the appeal was conveyed to the petitioner on July 8, 1965 and was referred to by him in the writ petition as the order dated the 8th July 1965. On November 8, 1965 the present petition was filed with a prayer that an appropriate writ, order or direction bs issued quashing the orders dated the 30th April and the 8th July 1965. It was alleged in the petition that the actioiin imposing the penalty upon the petitioner was arbitrary, vindictive, against prin...
Hardit Singh Vs. Mela Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1970
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT21
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) Sardar Harjit Singh, appellants, is the owner of the premises in dispute, consisting of a garage situated on Library Road, Azad Market. Delhi. It was let out to the respondent form at a rent of Rs. 70.00 per month, on November 1, 1959. On October 30, 1961 the respondent filed an aoplication under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control A Control Act, 1958 for the fixation of standard rent on the alhgations that the premises were in occupation of tenants before 1914 and the rent for the same before June 2,1954 was Rs. 20.00 per month only. It was stated that the standard rent of the premises in dispute could not be more than Rs.20.00 per month Prayer was made that the standard rent of the premises be fixed at Rs. 20.00 per month. The appellant-landlord contested the application. (2) Before the Additional Controller the respondent examined AW1, Dr Sain Dass. a medical practititioner, who had been inoccupation of the premises in dispute for nearly -8 years before 1959, when...
B.D. Sethi and ors. Vs. V.P. Dewan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT162
V.D. Misra, J.(1) The short question to be decided in this case is has the Magistrate Jurisdiction to revive the complaint which has been dismissed for default of appearance of the complainant and re-summon the accused who has been discharged under section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (2) V. P. Dewan complainant had filed a complaint under section 500, Indian Penal Code, against Banarsi Dass Sethi and Raj Kumar Sethi and the Magistrate issued process against the acoussed. On February 13, 1967, which was one of the dates of hearing before the Magistrate, the complainant was about with the result that the Magistrate dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused under section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and passed the following short order :- 'ACCUSEDwith counsel present. Complainant has not appeared despite reapeated calls. It is now 2.15 P.M. The case is under section 500, Indian Penal Code, which is compoundable and noncognizable. The case is dismissed under sec...
N. Dutt Vs. Sat Parkash BhasIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT112
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) Sat Parkash Bhasin and Sardari Lal Bhasin. here in referred to as 'the landlords', are the two owners of the premises in dispute, which were let out by them to one Mrs. Miran Gupta, herein referred to as 'the tenant' The premises, however, are in the occupation of Mr. N. Dutt, herein referred to as 'the subtenant' who is Director, Nalanda Public College and to whom the same were sub-let by the tenant. The landlords filed an application for eviction of the tenant, from the suit premises on the ground that the tenant, inter-alia, had without their consent sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in dispute in favor of Mr. N. Dutt who was also made a party to the eviction petition. The landlords applied under section 15(2) of the Act for direction for the payment of the arrears of rent and future rent. It was the sub-tenant, who contested the application. The Additional Controller rejected the subtenant's pleas and ordered him to pay the arre...
Workmen of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1970
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ316Del
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the award given by respondent No. 2 dated July 31, 1969, by which the Tribunal upheld the order of the management in suspending and later on dismissing the four employees of the bank.2. In order to appreciate the controversy it will be necessary to mention a few main facts. Indian Overseas Bank (previously known as Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.), Janpath, New Delhi, respondent No. 1, had three branches at the time of the incident situated at JanpaTh, Chandni Chowk and Karol Bagh in 1966-67. J. K. Sehgal and M. B. Jain at the relevant time were employed In Janpath branch of the bank and J. P. Rohtagi and Raj Kumar were employed in Chandni Chowk branch of the bank. It is alleged In the petition that on 31st March, 1964, a settlement had been arrived at between the management of the bank and its workmen which provided that direct recruitment to officers' cadre would not exceed 50...
Punjab State Vs. Jaginder Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT161
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) The reference made by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, under section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 disclosed that the Punjab State was the party to the said reference. It was for that reason that I had passed the order dated the 22nd October, 1970. (2) Mr, D. P. Sud has referred me to the provisions of Section 92 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and then to clauses (i), (m) and (n)of Section 2 thereof. Clause (m) is:- '(M)'Successor State',in relation to the existing State of Punjab, means the State of Punjab or Haryana, and includes also the Union in relation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the transferred territory.'(3) The transferred territory is defined in clause (n) of Section 2 of the aforementioned Act. Clause (m) means that in respect of the transferred territory the Union i. e Union of India will be the successor State, Himachal iradesh as such will not be the successor State. The transferred territory...
Nanak Chand and ors. Vs. Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi344
Hardaval Hardy, J. (1) This is an appeal from an order granting temporary injunction in a suit pending before a learned Single Judge on the original side of this Court.(2) The facts have been fully stated in the order under appeal and may thereforee be only briefly re-stated.(3) The appellants are defendants in a suit filed on the original side of this Court by the plaintiff-respondent which is a foreign company having its registered office in Karachi (West Pakistan.). The company is the registered proprietor of a trade mark 'Tibet Snow' which was registered in India under No. 14567 in class 3 as of 16-4-1943. The trade mark was renewed and its registration, subject to cancellation in the meanwhile, would be valid till 16-4-1972.(4) The defendants-appellants are carrying on business as manufacturers of cosmetics, including face cream, in the name and style of Plaza Chemical Industries and Indira Perfumery Company, Delhi. The face cream manufactured by them is being marketed and sold un...
Hanuman Prasad Gupta and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor Union Territory of Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1970
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT322
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of V. S. Deshpande J. whereby the appellants' petition under article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed. (2) The appellants claim to the owners of certain land with respect to which a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter called the Act, was issued. The appellants filed objections under section 5A of the said Act which were heard by the Land Acquisition Collector and thereafter the land was acquired by the Government by a notification under Section 6. In due course, an award offering compensation was made by the Collector and it is not disputed that the appellants accepted the compensation which was paid to them quite some time back. It however appears that during the pendency of the appeal an order was made by this Court whereby it was directed that if the money withdrawn by the appelllants was redeposited by them by 11th March, 1969 proceedings fo...
Niadar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT167
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (Shri D.K.Khanna) that the attachment of harvested crops may be quashed as, in his vitw, section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable. I' does not appeal from the order, not from the records of the case, as to when actually the dispute arose in this case, all that is known is that the crop (2) It is, however, stated to me at the Bar by the learned counsel for Fateh Singh that the dispute commenced on 6th April, 1970. In view of the facthat there appears to have been no inquiry regarding this aspect of the matter it seems inappropriate to say anything more about this on a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. (3) The facts mentioned in the reference are that Fateh Singh moved the Court under s. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, against Niadar on 23rd April, 1970 that he was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute and that Niadar was trying to take forcible possessi...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. B.N. Bhaskar (H.U.F.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1970
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi555; [1971]82ITR345(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' has refered the following question under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the managing agency remuneration was the income of B. N. Bhaskar earned in his individual capacity or the income of the Hindu undivided family 'of which he was the karta ?'(2) The assessed in this case is the Hindu undivided family consisting of Shri B. N. Bhaskar, the karta, his wife and sons. The assessment under reference is for the year 1959-60 and the relevant previous year is the financial year ending 31st March, 1959. During the relevant previous year, Shri B. N. Bhaskar was the sole proprietor of a managing agency business run under the name and style of M/s Bhaskar Brothers. This managing agency business came into existence under the following circumstances : (3) B. N. Bhaskar, the karta of the assessed Hindu undivided...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›