Delhi Court April 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.
Madho and ors. Vs. Kaka Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT356
Om Parkash, J.(1) This is an appeal against an order of the learned District Judge, Sirmur District, whereby he allowed an appeal against the order of the Compensation Officer. The land, measuring 99 Bighas and 8 bids was comprised in Khasra Nos. 115, 120. 124, 129 and 141 situate in village Rampur Majri, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmur, had vested in the State Government under section 27(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act. 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). , (2) The land was in possession of occupancy tenants-Babu, Madho, Baru; Mangta, Bagga, Pratapa, Behari and Banwari. Babu had one-third share- Madho and Baru sons of Sunder had one third share and Mangta, Bagga.. Pratapa, Behari and Banwari sons of Maiya had one third share. In the revenue records, the share of Babu was recorded as one-half. But it was conceded before the learned District Judge, and has not been disputed in the present appeal, that the share of Babu was one-third ...
Hardit Singh Vs. Kaushalya Rani Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi727
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act by Hardit Singh Oberoi is directed against the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal affirming on appeal the decision of the Additional Controller whereby an application filed by the tenant-appellant to the effect that the landlord had waived the right to evict the tenant, was dismissed. When the appeal came up for hearing before Tatachari. J., the learned Judge expressed the view that because of the important question involved in the case it should be heard by a Division Bench. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a tenant in the premises in dispute situated in Connaught Circus, New Delhi, under Daulat Ram on a monthly rent of Rs. 109.00. Daulat Ram filed an application under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for the ejectment of the appellant on the allegations that the latter had made alterations and additions in the premises and had caused substantial damage. It...
Keventers Karamchari Sangh Vs. the Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1970
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ375Del
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The order dated May 20, 1968 of the Delhi Administration prohibiting the continuance of the strike by the petitioner Union which was passed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged by this writ petition on three main grounds. Firstly, because sub-section (3) of section 10 of the said Act is vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution; secondly, because the said order was not in compliance with the provisions of the said sub-section and thirdly, because the said order was passed at the instance of respondent No. 2 without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against it.(2) The petitioners are a union of workmen of Messrs Edward Keventer (s) Private, Limited. The first Respondent 1s the Lt. Govenor of Delhi and the second Respondent 1s the said company. Certain demands raised by the petitioners on December 20, 1967 were pending conciliation before the Conciliation Off...
Radhey Sham Vs. Lieutenant Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi260
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This is an application for a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution that the dismissal of the petitioner's Civil Writ Petition No. 550 of 1969 by a Division Bench of this Court is a case fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. By the said writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order dated 27th June 1969 which the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi purported to make under section 487 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, on the ground that on the face of it the order was ultra virus section 487 and also invalid for other reasons. The learned Judges of the Division Bench however considered only the question whether the petitioner had a locus standi to challenge the impugned order and held as a preliminary question of law that the petitioner was an utter stranger who had no locus standi to file the petition. The order dismissing the petition raises two important questions of constitntioual law, namely :- (1)Whether a person in the position of t...
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi821
T.V.R. 8Tatachari, J. (1) The petitioner in this writ petition is Express Newspapers (Private) Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office at Mount Road, Madras. The respondents are (1) Shri P. L. Bhargava, Naib Tehsildar, Tis Hazari Building, Delhi, (2) the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, and (3) the Collector of Bombay. The said company owned a publication called 'Delhi Express'. (2) According to the petitioner, it promoted a cross-word prize competition called 'Squarewords', and published the same in the 'Delhi Express' since October, 1952. It was averred in the writ petition that the said prize competition was promoted, established and carried on in Delhi in the 'Delhi Express', but entries for the same were received from various parts of India including the State of Bombay. (3) On 15th November, 1948, the then Government of Bombay enacted an Act called the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act No. Liv of 1948 to ...
Modi Industries Limited Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi621
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This petition under section 33 of the Arbitration Act filed on 31st October, 1957, in the Subordinate Court has been transferred to this Court under the Delhi High Court Act and it raises interesting question of law. (2) The material facts of the case, which are not in dispute are briefly following; There was a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act known as Modi Food Products Company, Limted, which had by order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 14th of September, 1956, in Company Case No. 21 of 1956 been in pursuance of scheme sanctioned by the High Court under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, amalgamated with and transferred to Modi Sugar Mills Limited, which has been succeeded by and is now known as Modi Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner). Before the aforesaid amalgamation, the Chief Director of purchase, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Directorate General of Food (Army Purchase Organisation), Ne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›