Delhi Court September 1970 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1970 Page 1 of about 20 results (0.016 seconds)Mineral Industry Association Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1971Delhi160; [1971(22)FLR363]
1. By this petition moved under Art 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an order of the Central Government issued on 19-4-1961 making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. A dispute between 23 maganese mine-owners in the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh on the one hand and their workmen on the other hand was referred to the Industrial Tribunal under the powers conferred on the Central Government by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not disputed that though reference was made as far back as in 1961 there has been no progress with the reference although neither the Industrial Tribunal nor the parties concerned were restrained by any court order from proceedings with the reference. After a lapse of almost 10 years specially when no steps have been taken by any of the parties to proceed with the reference, it cannot be denied that the reference is wholly infructous. All the same that no such refe...
Tag this Judgment!Pritam Singh Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1621a; 7(1971)DLT345
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) The question the arises in this case is whether the bond executed by a surety accused under section 499 old the Code of Criminal Procedure even when no bond has been executed by the accused under thal section is a valid band which can be forieited under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) the The facts of the case are that one Banwan Lal who is a milk vendor was proceeded with under the Prevention old Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was produced before Shri C.D. Sharnia Magistrate 1st Class Delhi, who by his order dated 6th September, l968, directed Banwari Lal to furn sh a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 with one surety in the like amount for appearing in the court whenever required. In pursuance of this the petitioner, Priiam Stngb. executed a surety bond in the amount of Rs, 2,000.00 on l2th September, 1968, undertaking that Banwari Lal would be appearing in the court Irom time to time as may be required until the close oi the trial and if ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudershan Lal Wadhawan Vs. Devi Das
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1971RLR75
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) [RESPONDENT had sued the appellant for eviction on various grounds on 10.6.1964. Rent Controller on 27.1.66 passed an order U/S 15(2) that arrears of rent should be deposited within a month and monthly rent by the 15th of following month. Rent was deposited in time up to July, 1966. then monthly rent was not deposited from 1.8.65 to 30.8.68 for 23 months. In July, 68 rent was deposited from August, 66 to December, 68. Again there was no deposit from January, 69 to April, 69. On 19.5.69, landlord applied for striking out of defense of appellant and appellant deposited rent from January, 69 to June, 69 on 21.5.69. Rent Controller held that as tenant had deposited all the rent due though late, his defense should not be struck out. In appeal the Tribunal held that there was no justification for not depositing monthly rent in time and accepted the appeal. Tenant appealed to the High Court. It was dismissed.] Para 5 of the judgment is :- (2) Mr. Mahajan, the learned c...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chandar and ors. Vs. Chungo and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT264
P.N. Khanna (1) This is an appeal by two minor land-owners (Maesh Chander and Mohinder Kumar) against an order dated August 14, 1967 of the District Judge, Mandi, unholding the orders dated November 9, 1966 or the Compensation Officer who refused to give to the appellants the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and allowed the application of the respondents-tenants for the grant of proprietary rights in the land held by them as tenants under the said land-owners. (2) The land originally belonged to one Shri Parma Nand the grand-father of the appellants. On August 24, 1963 he made a gift of the same in favor of the minor appellants each of whom is a son of one of his two sons. On October 16, 1963 an application was made against Shri Parma Nand by the respondents-tenants for the grant of proprietary rights in the land in dispute. On Shri Parma Nand raising an objection ...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Kaur Vs. Beli Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi651
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) The short question, which has been referred to the Division Bench, is whether a tenant is liable to be ejected from any premises under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if he has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a residence before the commencement of the tenancy. The question had arisen in S.A.O. Nos. 125 of 1967 and 161-D of 1965. Brief reference has been made to the facts in the case of S.A.O. No. 125 of 1967, and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the answer to the above question in S.A.O. No. 125 of 1967 would also govern the other case.(2) The premises in dispute, situated in Golf Links Colony, New Delhi, were let out to Shrimati Avinash Kaur appellant for her residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,400.00 on June 1, 1962. Before that, on January 18, 1956 the appellant acquired vacant possession of a residential hou...
Tag this Judgment!The Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. Vs. the Coll ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT399
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of both L, No. 123 of 1967 and L.P.A. 124 of 1967 arising out of a judgment dated 22nd November, 1967 dismissing C.W. 217-D of 1964 and C.W.No. 150-D of 1961. (2) The appellant/petitioner in both these appeals is a society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, as extended to Delhi. Certain lands situated in village Okhla Molar Bund, Ali, Jasola, Sadabad, Madanpur and certain other villages within the Union Territory of Delhi are owned by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. With a view to assist the Grow more Pood Campaign of the Government of India by bringing under cultivation as much land as possible the appellant society approached the Government of Uttar Pradesh through the Government of India for lettiag out to it the above land so that the same could be brought under plough. By a letter dated 7th September, 1949, Shri A.D. Pandit, the then Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh expressed the willingness ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Chand Sood Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi231
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) The short question involved in this case is as to whether the complaint filed against Kishan Chand Sood by Shri Devi Das Sharma, Station House Officer of the Roshanara Police Station, Delhi, purporting to be under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, can be proceeded with or the proceedings should be quashed. (2) On January 30, 1967 Kishan Chand Sood, hereafter, called the petitioner, had made a report in Police Station Roshanara Delhi, according to which that day he had been caused injuries by Suman Lal, Narinder Kumar and Tej Kaur. The report was written in the Roznamcha register and after the petitioner was got medically examined a case (F.I.R. No. 51) under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the alleged assailants. (3) As a result of investigation the report made by the petitioner was found to be false. On a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the SubDivisional Magistrate, S...
Tag this Judgment!Bishan Sarup Gupta Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1970Delhi629
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) Bishan Sarup Gupta by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash the revised seniority list of Income-tax Officers, Class I, issued by the Ministry of Finance by letter dated July, 15, 1968. Prayer has also been made to quash the principles which were adopted in revising the seniority list. The principles are given in letter dated July 15, 1968 accompanying the revised list. Another letter sought to be quashed by the petitioner is dated July 5, 1969 addressed by the Ministry of Finance. Prayer has further been made by the petitioner for refixing his seniority in Income-tax Service, Class I, so as to show him above the direct recruits appointed as a result of the competitive examination held in 1959. A number of other consequential and ancillary reliefs have also been asked for by the petitioner.(2) The first six respondents are (1) the Union of India, (2)the Ministry of Finance (Department o...
Tag this Judgment!Durlab Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1182; 7(1971)DLT152
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.(1) This petition has beenpreferred under sections 439 and 561-A of the Codeof Criminal Procedure against the judgment of theAdditional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated the 31st ofAugust, 1967. By that judgment the conviction ofthe petitioners under section 292 of the Indian PenalCode and sentences imposed on them by the trial courtin terms of its judgment dated 7th of March, 1967 wereconfirmed.(2) I have heard Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon for overthree days and Mr. Vir Sen Sahni has also addressedme in one of this set of seven similar petitions. DurlabSingh is the common petitioner in all of them. He isaccompanied by either of his sons in each case.(3) While taking its strides towards civilization thehuman race has through different ages and climes beendeveloping certain standards of decency and morality.Those standards are the anchor sheets of decent existence.The framers of the Constitution of India were not forgetful of that aspect while enacting clause (a) of Article ...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Vs. Devku
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT178
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This miscellaneous second appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 17. 1968 of the District Judge, Mandi, who set aside the order of the Compensation Officer granting the proprietary rights in the land in dispute to the appellant alone and instead granted the same to the appellant and the respondent in equal shares. (2) The land in dispute previously belonged to Shri Rajkumar Ashokpal Singh. It came to be vested in the Government under section 27(i)of the Himachal Pradesh.abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to as the Act). In proceedings for tranferring the right, title and interest of the landowner to the cultivating tenants, the Compensation Officer up held ther right of Mani, the appellant alone. (3) In the revenue records the names of Reshmu widow of Mahesh war. Devka widow of Roda and Mani son of Ditta, were recorded as the cultivating tenants, all the three in equal shares. On the death of Reshma her daughter Hima had n...
Tag this Judgment!