Delhi Court February 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.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Peter Sewing Machine Co., e ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi182
1. This and the connected two appeals (3-D of 1961 and 4-D of 1961)are filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the decision of the Employees' Insurance Court dismissing the applications of the Corporation, one for the period from 12-11-1956 to 30-6-1958 and the other for the period from 1-7-1958 to 31-3-1959, for the recovery of contributions under the Employees' State Insurance Act. 1948, (hereinafter called the Act) from Shri Dharam Bir, proprietor Messrs. Peter Sweing Machine Company and accepting the counter application of Shri Dharam Bir that he was not liable to pay the contributions. The findings of fact given by the Employees' Insurance Court are that the Peter Sewing Machine Company was carrying on the business of making and assembling sewing machine parts by the use of power. It did not itself employ twenty or more persons. But it allowed at first two contractors, namely, Duaba Sewing Machine Company and Krishan Sewing Machine Company to work in its premis...
Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Ram Avtar Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi694
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords and the petitioner is a tenant of the premises-house No. 1232, Chowk Shah Mubarak, Delhi. The landlords applied to Respondent No. 3 Competent authority under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 as amended in 1964 for permission to evict the tenant from the premises, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant is not living in the premises for over six months prior to the filling of the application and that he has acquired vacant possession of another residence, house No. 2372, Gali Ghanta Kakwan, Farash Khana, Delhi. On 24-9-1968, the Competent authority directed notice of the application to be sent to the tenant by registered post. The registered envelop containing the notice was returned to the Competent authority by the post-office with the following remarks, namely:- (a) Not met 10-10-68, 11-10-68, 12-10-68, 14-10-68 and 15-10-1968; and (b) A. D. Refused 16-10-1968. (2) On 22-11-1968, the ...
Seth SatnaraIn Goenka and ors. Vs. Union of India Through the Ministry ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi232
1. The dispute, in this appeal against an award of an arbitrator, relates to the requisitioning of a three storeye building, known as Sat Narain Building, with out-houses and extensive lawns, situated on Dina Nath Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.2. Sat Narain building was first requisitioned by the Government, in May, 1944 but was released in June, 1945. It was again requisitioned from the 1st November, 1947, by the requisition order dated 21st October, 1947. The order was issued under the Delhi Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance, 1947. The owners of the requisitiond premises had filed a suit questioning the validity of the order of requisition. On discovering that there was some lucuna in the order of requisition, the Government had issued a fresh order of requisition on the 23rd June, 1948. The possession of the requisitioned premises was taken over by the Government on the 5th July, 1948. The Government and the owners failed to agree with respect to the amount of compensation pa...
Bharat Kumar Chinubhai Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1970
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi46
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution is to an order made by D the Central Government under Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 65 of 1951 taking over the management of the Industrial undertaking known as the New Maneckchock Spinning and Weaving Company Limited Ahmedabad for a period of one year from the date of the publication of the order in official Gazette viz. 14-2-1969. (2) The petitioner is the Managing Agent of the Company since 1957, In his petition he also laid claim to be the owner of the company, but that is evidently not correct even though his family is perhaps the holder of majority of shares therein. According to his allegations in the petition, the company had once seen better days, but from 1958 onwards the years of loss alternated with the years of profit till in 1965 its balance-sheet showed a gross loss of about 19 lacs of rupees and the position in the years 1966 and 1967 wa...
Rani Sarla Devi Vs. Banda Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi495
Prakash Narain, J. (1) The decree-holder, Smt. Rani Sarla Devi, filed a suit for recovery of over Rs. 2 lacs against the Judgment-debtor company. During the pendency of the suit, winding up proceedings in respect of the judgment-debtor were commenced in the Allahabad High Court and a provisional liquidator was appointed. Accordingly, the suit could not proceed in view of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The decree-holder then applied to the Allahabad High Court for grant of leave to proceed with the suit in Delhi. This leave was granted on 8th August, 1967. The suit itself was decreed on 12th March, 1968. After the passing of the decree anorder of winding up was made in respect of the judgment-debtor company by the Allahabad High Court on 17th September, 1968. The decree- holder moved an execution application in this Court on 6th November, 1968 praying for execution of the decree in favor of the decree-holder by attachment of a sum of Rs. 1,85,000.00 lying with the U.P. Electric...
Delhi Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works and anr. Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi88
P.N. Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated May 28, 1969 of Mr. Justice T. V. R. Tatachari, dismissing the appellants; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indian challenging the validity of notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of certain lands situated in village Kilokari, New Delhi.2. Briefly stated, the appellants purchased the said land measuring 16 bighas and 12 bids was bearing fields Nos. 386/2 and 387/2 situated in village Kilokari, New Delhi, for constructing residential houses for themselves and the employees of the first appellant and its allied concerns. A notification dated November 28, 1958 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, herein called 'the Act' was published in Delhi Gazettee dated December 11, 1958 to the effect hat land including the appellants land, was likely to be taken by the Government at the expense of a Co-operative Societ...
Swaran Kumari Malhotra Vs. Amir Chand Malhotra Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi673
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This is an appeal by the wife (hereafter called 'the appellant') from the order of the Additional District Judge dated April 30, 1968, granting a decree of divorce in favor of the husband (hereafter called 'respondent No. 1') under section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter called 'the Act'). (2) The parties are Hindus by religion. They were married at Lahore on May 3, 1943. Three children were born to them out of the wedlock, the oldest being a son Ravi Kumar aged 22 years at the time when the petition was filed, the second being a daughter Veena who it is admitted between the parties, has since been married, and the third is a son Ravinder Malhotra, who is still a minor. After the partition of the country, the parties migrated to India and lived together as husband and wife at different places including Delhi. In June, 1966, respondent No. 1 filed a petition under sub-section (1) of section 13, clauses (i) and (iii) of the Act with the allegation...
Ajit Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Delhi154; 1970CriLJ1075; ILR1985Delhi717
H.R. Khanna, C.J.1. The short question which arises for determination in this case is whether an accused person can be remanded to custody for a period beyond 15 days of his arrest in the absence of a police report commonly known as charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). According to the petitioners' counsel unless a charge-sheet is submitted a criminal court has no power to remand an accused to custody after 15 days of his arrest and he in such an event must be released on bail. As against that submission made on behalf of the state is that an accused be remanded to custody by the Court having jurisdiction in the matter under Section 344 of the Code and it is not obligatory to release the accused on bail after 15 days of his arrest even though the charge-sheet has not been put in the Court. The question has arisen in the following circumstances:-4The dead body of Sarjeevan Prakash alias kaka was found in the fields in th...
K.G. Khosla and Company Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT429
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This writ petition is a sequel to Civil writ Petition No. 4470 1968 whereby the order dated the 7th of May 1968 blacklisting the petitioners purporting to have been made under clause 3 (iii) of the Standardised Code against the petitioners, was quashed by the judgment dated the 7th October 1968 of a Division Bench of this Court (S K. Kapur and T.V. R Tatachari, JJ.). Upon a certificate granted by this Court an appeal was taken against the aforementioned decision to the Supreme Court by the respondents. When the appeal came up for hearing on 12-8-1969 the period for which the blacklisting order was operative had expired and the Supreme Court considered it unnecessary to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the at or asaid decision. (2) Shortly thereafter the impugned order was made on the 9th of October, 1939 and it is in the following terms :- Ministry Of Foreign Trade And Supply (DEPARTMENTOF SUPPLY) New Delhi, the 9th October, 1969. Office Memora...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi267
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) This judgment would dispose of Wealth Tax References No. 8 of 1968 and No. 1 of 1969. The assessed in these two references is the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi. Wealth Tax Reference No. 8 of 1968 relates to assessment year 1957-58 for which the relevant valuation date is June 30, 1956, while Wealth Tax Reference No. 1 of 1969 pertains to the assessment year 1958-59 the relevant valuation date for which is June 30, 1957. The following two questions have been referred in Reference No. 8 of 1968 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :- '(I)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the excise duty of Rs. 6,13,614.00 claimed by the assessed in the assessment year 1957-58 is a 'debt owed', within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the relevant valuation date (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the investment of Rs. 2.000.00 by the assessed c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›