Delhi Court July 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.
Sewa Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi95; 1971CriLJ465
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, affirming on appeal, the conviction of the petitioner, under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)2. On October 10, 1966, Food Inspector Nand Kishore, P. W. 1 had purchased 600 grams of chashew nuts, on payment of 60 paise, from the shop of the petitioner located in Main Market, Moti Nagar, Delhi, for the purpose of analysis, after giving notice Ex. P.B., to the petitioner. The cashew nuts purchased, were divided into three parts and each part was sealed in a dry and clean bottle. One of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst was that the sample sent was insert-infested and that the infestation was 100%. In the opinion of the Public Analyst the sample sent was adulterated and was unfit for human consumption. The report of the Public Analyst is Ex. P...
Nathu Ram Mathura Prashad and anr. Vs. Mamleshwar Phashad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT100
S.N. Shankar and S. Rangarajan, JJ. (1) R.F.A.205-D of 1962 and R.F.A. 29-D of 1963 arise out of suit No 131 of 1960 in which the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, trying the suit granted a decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff-respondents. Maleshwar Pershad and Kamta Pershad, hereinafter called the plaintiffs, in respect of land measuring 968 bighas and 15 bids was situated in village Chowkri Mubarkabad, Delhi, comprised in Khasra Nos. 1 to 109, hereafter called the land in suit, and also decreed their suit for recovery of Rs. 18,000.00 against the two appellants, Messrs Nathu Ram Mathura Prshad and Permeshwar Pershad the appellants in R.F.A. 22 D of 1963, hereafter called the lessees and Messrs Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Ltd., appellants in R. F. A. 205 D of 1962, hereafter called the sub-tenants.(2) On November 18. 1959, the plaintiffs filed this suit against the lessees and the sub-tenants in occupation of the land in suit with the allegation that by agreement of le...
Tara Chand Vs. the Land Acquisition Collector, (Delhi Shahdara), Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi116
ORDER1. The precise nature of the right to claim enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') and what exactly destroys such a right under Section 31 of the Act has to be considered in this case.2. The petitioner's land was duly acquired by the Government and an award offering compensation to the petitioner was made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11 of the Act. Under Section 12(1) of the Act, such an award is final except as there in after provided in the Act. Under Section 18(1) any person who has not accepted the award may, by a written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector to the Civil Court for the determination by that Court of his objections as to the amount of the compensation etc. within six weeks of the delivery of the award or of the compensation etc. within six weeks of the delivery of the award or the receipt of the notice of the award by him as the case may be...
Maqbool Ahmed Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT120
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This execution second appeal under section 100 read with section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the tenant who is the defendant-judgment-debtor and is directed against the appellate order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dated 20th February, 1968, by which he affirmed the order of the Court of first instance dated 27th December, 1967, thereby finally rejecting all the objections of the judgment debtor against execution of the decree passed against him, (2) The brief facts of the case are that on 10thApril. 1956, the decree-holder (respondent before me) filed a suit for eviction against the appellant before me in respect of a portion of house No. 2217 at Gali Qasim Jan, Delhi under the provisions of section 13 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1952, The suit was decreed on 30th April. 1957. The appellant before me filed an appeal against the said decree which was compromised and he was allowed 18 months' time to vacate the premises and the a...
Union of India Vs. Oriental Construction Delhi Pvt. Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT9
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This execution first appeal under section 47 read with section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the Union of India-Judgment-debtor and is directed against the older of a Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi dated 13th May, 1966, by which he has rejected the objection of the judgment-debtor and held in answer to preliminary issue No. 1 that the execution Court could not go behind the decree. (2) The material facts of the case are in a brief compass. On 17th August, 1964, an award was made between the parties which culminated in the passing of the decree on 5-3-1965. The award as embodied in the decreedirects certain amounts of payments and adjudicates some claims for refunds and adjustments on extra payment. In respect on items Nos. 8, 9 and 10, which are in dispute before me, the award determined the rate payable as well as the number of articles, bat did not specifically make the calculations nor directed payment of a lump sum amount for the said ite...
Union of India Vs. Allied International Products Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1970
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas116(Delhi); ILR1970Delhi184
S.N. Andley, J. (1) These two appeals have been filed by the Union of India against the common judgment dated August 8, 1969 of Rangarajan, J, allowing two writ petitions Nos. 485 and 486 of 1967 filed by the Allied International Products Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company' who are 1st Respondent 1n both the appeals. The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. is the second Respondent 1n L.P.A. No. 72 of 1969 while the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. is the second Respondent 1n L.P.A. No. 73 of 1969.(2) The two stock exchanges had not granted permission to the company for its shares to be dealt in on them. The company filed appeals to the Central Government under section 22 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. 1956. These appeals were dismissed by orders dated February 23, 1966 on the ground that the aforesaid two stock exchanges had neither granted permission for extended the time as provided by sub-section (1) of section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956, herein...
Kanwar Durga Chand and ors. Vs. the Administrator (Lt. Governor) and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1970
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi174
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) The petitioners, Kanwar Durga Chand and Shri Daulat Ram Chauban, are elected members of the Legislative Assembly for the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. They have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in Which their prayers are as follows :- '(A)to quash notification No. 1 .222/70-Sectt.Edu.I, dated 19th February, 1970, whereby the respondent No. 3 was nominated as Chairman of the Board of School Education for Himachal Pradesh; (B)to issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto to oust respondent No. 3 from the office of Chairman of the Board, which is held by him without any legal authority as usurper; (C)to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1, to nominate an eminent educationist having special experience in school education as Chairman of the Board; and to elect a third person as member of the Board from amongst the members of Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh; (D)to direct respondent No. 3...
Grand Ikon Works and ors. Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT82
S. Rangarajan (1) The petitioners (Messrs Grand Jron Works & others) carry on the business of giving on hire Kohlus (sugarcane crushers) and Karahas (boiling pans) at their Head Office in Chawri Bazar, Delhi, having their depots spread out in various villages in the States of Haryana, Pinjab, H, P., Rajasthan, etc. They run an iron casting foundry-cum-machine Shop at the Indastrial Estate, Okhla, New Delhi. The controversy in this writ petition is concerning the liability of the petitioners to pay the employer's contribution under the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 in respect of the employees at the Head Office in Chawri Bazar, Delhi, according to the respondents they are so liable by reason at section 2(9) of the said Act, as amended by Act 44 of 1986 The petitioners contention is that since the Office at Chawri Bazar was engaged in the hiring out of the Kohlus and Karahas and the employees working there had absolutely nothing to do with any process or work of or incidental to o...
Premnath Motors Workshop Private Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industria ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1970
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT25; [1971(22)FLR370]; (1971)ILLJ167Del
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The main point in this case relates to the two distinct and disparate functions of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the necessity to keep their difference in mind and the confusion which results otherwise. (2) The Respondent No. 2 was charge sheeted for un-authorised and habitual absence in attending to the work of the petitioner, i.e. employer. The charge was that from January to October 1964, the Respondent No. 2 was so absent for a few days in each month. the total absence coming to 33 days. The Industrial Relations Officer held an enquiry and found the charge proved. The petitioner consequently dismissed the Respondent No. 2 and then applied to the Industrial Tribunal Respondent No. 1 for the approval of the said dismissal. The chargesheet is at Annexure A, the report of the Domestic Enquiry Office is at Annexure and the application for approval is at Annexure E to the wr...
Mohammad Isrhaq Vs. Jannat Bi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1970
Reported in: 6(1970)DLT440
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The appellant is aggrieved by by the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing his appeal, which he had preferred against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby he has refused to stay the proceedings in execution pending decision of the objections, against him in the following circumstances:- The landlord had applied for evicting the tenant from the premiess in question on the ground that she required the premises for re-roofing the same i. e. for effecting the 'reparis' under Section 14(f) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. There was a compromise between the landlord and the tenant on 28th April, 1961 or. the basis of which a decree for eviction was passed in terms of the compromise. By the said compromise the tenant admitted that the landlord had to get the roof-re-re-laid. He, thereforee, agreed that an order for eviction be passed against him and in favor of the landlord and that he would vacate the premises on or before 15th August, 1...