Delhi Court August 1970 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1970 Page 2 of about 24 results (0.022 seconds)Dayal Weaving Factory Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi357
S. N. Andley, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 346 and 347 of 1969. The petitioner in the former is the Dayal Weaving Factory and the petitioner in the latter is the Vinod Textiles. Petitioners are seeking the issuance of a writ etc. for quashing the order dated March 1, 1969 of the Central Excise Inspector, Panipat, direcing the petitioners (1) to maintain Rg I and Ed 4 account; (2) not to clear the stock under manufacture without payment of duty on Ar I at the rate of 12'% basic 2'% additional ad valorem and (3) to clearly segregate the units and get the store room within the factory approved immediately. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as set out in clauses 30(xii) die Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as set out in clauses 30(xii) and 33(ii) of the Finance Bill, 1969. It is necessary only to mention the facts in Civil Writ No. 346 of 1969 as the facts in Civil Writ No. 347 of 1969 are simlar.(2) The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Kaicker Typewriter Exchange Vs. Ram NaraIn Mehra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi384
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 16th April, 1970 by which the learned Judge repelled the objection of the defendant to the burden of proof on issue No. 3 and held that the firm was dealing in the sale of typewriters and it was thus a trading firm and so all the partners had authority in law to raise loans and the petition was dismissed. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit against the partnership firm, defendant No. 1, and five other partners of the same firm for the recovery of Rs. 3,400.00 together with costs and future interest on the allegations that on or about 3rd January, 1963, defendant No. 2 acting for and on behalf of defendant No. 1, borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 from defendant No. 6 and executed a promissory note and receipt of the same and that later on defendants Nos. 1 to 5 paid certain amount on account of principal and ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. Barhama and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi277
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, affirming the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge whereby the plaintiff applicant's suit for possession of certain land situate in Tika Dadhuna Dakhali Garh Jamoela, Tehsil Palampur, along with share in Shamilat was dismissed.(2) The facts found by the Court below are as follows :- ONESmt. Janki widow of Gulaba sold one-half of her land which she held as a limited owner in favor of Brahma Nanda who was imp leaded as defendant no. 1 in the suit and is respondent no. 1 in this Court. The mutation of the land was made in favor of the vendee on 23-2-1945. On the same date she made a gift of her remaining half share in that land in favor of Smt. Manshan who was defendant no. 2 in the trial Court and is respondent no. 2 here. . The donee is the daughter of the brother of Smt. Janki's husband Gulaba.(3) Both these alienations were challenged in a suit brought by Jogdish a...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi Vs. Mela Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1971RLR65
Rajinder Sachar(1) [SUIT property was an evacuee property. Smt. Ganga Devi on 27.1.1951 applied for its allotment to her. It was allotted to her on 29.3.51. In 2 survey reports of 17.8.51 and 29.12.51 she is described as allottee. The property was auctioned in 1964 in favor of respondent and he was granted sale certificate on 22.3.1965. The allottee did not make any payment to the respondent and thus lost the protection of S. 29 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Act 1954. Respondent sued her for possession claiming her only as a licensee. Trial Court Court dismissed the suit. In appeal District Judge held that Smt. Ganga Devi was a mere allottee and not a tenant and that she having failed to comply with the provisions of Sec ion 29 she was liable to eviction. He granted a decree for possession. Ganga Devi appealed against the said judgment. She died during the pendency of the appeal and her legal representatives were brought on record. High Court dismissed the app...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Musha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT31
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mandi, on 30-4-1966. (2) Respondents, Musa and Ummar Din, were accused in a case sent up by the police in the Court of the Magistrate at Karsog, District Mandi. The learned Magistrate framed charge against Musa for an offence under sections 363, 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code, and against Ummar Din for an offence under sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code, and committed them for trial by the Court of Session at Mandi. They were both tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and were acquitted as stated above.(3) The facts as alleged by the prosecution are that on 17-10-1964 Smt. Satyan (Public Witness . 3), wife of Ali Hussain (Public Witness . 1) and Nurbanu (Public Witness . 2), daughter of Ali Hussain from another wife named Smt. Bibi, were returning home from forest with grass loads...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Tribhuwan Das Lalji Patel
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi120
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Shri N. C. Gupta, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi whereby the objections filed by M/s. Tribhuwan Das Lalji Patel to an award made by Shri Ram Labhaya were accepted and the award was not made a rule of the Court.2. The facts leading up to the award were that a contract for the supply of Indian Teak Sleepers of specified sizes at a specified rate was entered into between the Union of India and M/s. Tribhuwan Das Lalji Patel of Bhavnagar. The contracted goods had to be supplied to the Union of India on monthly basis from June, 1952 onwards and the total quantity was to be supplied by 31st December 1952. The contract entered into by the Union of India was subject to its Supply Department's general conditions of contract contained in a printed booklet known as form W.S.B. 133. These general conditions, inter alia, contained an arbitration clause under which in case of a dispute between the parties and differences arising between them the same were ...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Lal Vij Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi493
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) These two writ petitions have been heard together and they may be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 147 of 1967 is Kundan Lal Vij, an officiating Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 148 of 1967 is Harish Chander who is also an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police, Delhi. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for the issuance of an appropriate Writ, order or direction (1) quashing an order dated 31st January, 1967, by which the names of the petitioners were removed from the promotion list 'F' (2) quashing the supersession of the petitioners by Janki Nath, respondent 10 in the writ petitions and (3) directing respondents I to 3 to give the petitioners their seniority in terms of their entitled confirmation and promotion.'(2) Respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ petitions are-(1) The Delhi Administration through the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi (2) the Inspector General of P...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Yaqub Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi45a
Khanna, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to the Full bench in pursuance of an order made by Om Parkash and Anmsari, JJ.:-'(1) Whether the employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board are persons serving in connection with the affair of the Punjab State who could be allocated to the successor States under Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. (2) Whether the employees of the said Board constituted its assets or liabilities which were liable to apportioned between the successor States under sub-sections (3) and (4) of S. 67 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act.' 2. The questions have arisen in a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Mohd. Yaqub petitioner on January 3, 1969. The six respondents in the petition are (1) Union of India, (2) Himachal Pradesh Administration, (3) Secretary, Department of Multipurpose Projects and Power, Government of Himachal Pradesh (4) D. C. Tandon, (5) Ramjilal Kaistha and (6) Duni Chand Bhandari. ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Lal Mehta and anr. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi539
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) The petitioners in this case, Krishan Lal Mehta and Madan Lal Luthra, employed as assistant Manager and Head Booking; Clerk respectively in the cinema-house run by respondent No. 2, have filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, respondent No.. 1, dated July 23. 1968. made on a dispute raised by them be quashed and the Tribunal be directed to decide the reference on merits. (2) Facts leading to this petition stated briefly are that 'on 1st November, 1964, both these petitioners were suspended from service by the employers pending inquiry into certain charges leveled against them. After inquiry, on May 24, 1965, they were dismissed from service and no payment was allowed to them either by way of salary or for the period of suspension. Thereupon they raised an industrial dispute and as it could not otherwise be settled, on April 15, 1967, the Lt. Governor, Delhi, referred the same for decision to ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Bhim Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi220
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court and raises the question of interpretation of Rules 7 and 7-A of the Central Health Service Rules, 1963 as amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966.(2) The appellant is Union of India while the only contesting respondent is Dr. Bhim Singh Jain (Respondent No. 1 herein) who was petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 60 of 1969 decided in his favor by the learned single Judge vide his judgment dated October 3, 1969. Dr. Bhim Singh is admittedly a highly qualified ophthalmic surgeon who despite his humble start as L.M.S. (Punjab), qualified himself later, as L.R.C.P.S. (Edin.), L.R.F.P. & S. (Glasgow), F.R.C.S. (Edin.), M.R.C.P. (Edin.) and D.O.M.S. (Punjab). He returned to India on the completion of his studies abroad in the year 1957 and was selected soon after his arrival, by the Union Public Service Com- mission for appoint...
Tag this Judgment!