Delhi Court November 1971 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.
Sarup Singh Vs. Daryodhan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi142; 1971RLR89
B.C. Misra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant judgment-debtor and is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 24th October, 1969 by which the learned judge has ordered the issue of a warrant for delivery of possession of immovable property in execution of a decree for mandatory injunction. The question raised in the revision is whether the issue of such a warrant in the circumstances of the case was within the jurisdiction of the Court, and this question was considered to be of sufficient importance by one of us and has been referred to the Full Bench for decision.2. The material facts of the case are that the respondent is the landlord (though not the owner) of the piece of land in dispute situated at Jhande Walan, Paharganj, Delhi, where a workshop containing a motor machinery with electric power owned by the respondent has been installed. It appears that the respondent gave ...
Chanan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi530
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This Revision is directed against die judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge, up-holding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months rigors imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1.000.(2) Chanan Lal, petitioner, was found selling Panir on October 12, 1968 at about 9 A.M. in Vegetable Market, Subzimandi, Delhi. Shri S. L. Mehra, Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity purchased 600 grams of the same as sample for analysis on payment of its requisite price. It was cut into small pieces and divided in three equal parts and was put in three dry and clean bottles. After putting the requisite drops of formalin in each bottle, the same were duly sealed. Exhibits P-A, P-B and P-C are the documents which were prepared at the spot in relation to the taking of sample. The petitioner signed and also put his thumb impression on these documents. The Food Inspector handed over one scaled bottle to th...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi475; [1973]32STC113(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, C.J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated the 13th January, 1971, passed by Shri v. S. Deshpande, a single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ No. 574-D of 1966, whereby the learned Judge quashed notification No. S.R.O. 3908 date 7th December, 1957 and the subsequent notifications made thereafter in pursuance of the said notification. (2) Since a common question of law is involved in this Letters Patent Appeal and LPAs, Nos. 54 to 59 of 1971 and in writ petitions viz. Civil Writs Nos. 593 to 652 of 1971 and in Civil Writs Nos. 792 to 806 of 1971, the counsel for the parties agreed that only the Appeal and Civil Writ No. 593 of 1971 be heard as decision in these two cases will dispose of the appeals and other writ petitions. Consequently, both the Appeal and the Writ petition are being disposed of by this common judgment. (3) There is no dispute as to facts which have been clearly stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. (4) Delhi...
K. Gopalan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi438; 1973LabIC287
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) was enacted to provide for the institution of provident funds for employees .in factories and other establishments. The original Schedule I of the Act specified the various iadustries to which the Act applied from its inception. Section 4 of the Act enabled the Central Government by notification to include other industries in Schedule I from time to time and to apply the. provisions of the Act to them. All such notifications are required to be laid before Parliament after they are issued by section 4(2) of the Act. According to sub-section (3) of section I thereof, the Act applies to two kinds of establishments, namely :- (A)to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule 1 and in which twenty or more persons are employed, (B)to any other establishment employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by noti...
Mohan Lal Ahuja Vs. Ramjas Foundation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi148; ILR1972Delhi492
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The petitioner is a tenant of the premises of which Respondent No. I is the landlord. The-landlord made an application to Respondent No. 2 (Competent Authority) under section 19 of the um Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (here- inafter called the Slum Areas Act for permission to file a petition for eviction against the tenant under section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Rent Act). The permission was granted to the landlord by the Competent Authority by the impugned order dated 24-1-1969 at Annexure C to the writ petition solely on the ground that the requirements of section 22 of the Rent Act were satisfied. The Competent Authority held that the tenant was not entitled to the protection of section 19 of the Slum Areas Act inasmuch as he was liable to be evicted under section 22 of the Rent Act. The Competent Authority concluded that 'the question of status and means of the respondent (tenant) is not discussed here. Permi...
Hindustan Housing Factory (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi469
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The eviction of tenants in Delhi was formerly controlled by the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act of 1952) the provisions of which were repeated and were re-enacted by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act of 1958) which is now in force. The construction of section 17 of the Act of 1952 (corresponding to section 22 of the Act of 1958) arises for consideration in this reference to Division Bench.(2) The Hindustan Housing Factory, a. private limited company registered under the Companies Act, is the owner and the landlord of the premises which were let for a period of three months to Rajinder Singh (respondent) with effect from 16-1-1955. But as Rajinder Singh did not vacate the premises, a notice terminating the tenancy from 28-2-1957 was given to him on 31-1-1957. As he still refused to vacate the premises, the landlord filed a suit for eviction against him under section 17 of the Act of 1952. This suit was ...
Chhadami Lal JaIn Vs. Veer Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1971
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas185(Delhi)
Ansari, J.1. The appellant had filed a Suit No. 100/55 against the respondent-company for the recovery of Rs. 6,87,764.40 representing the unpaid sale price of the factory known as Bimal Glass Works, Feroza-bad, Agra, which was sold by the appellant to the respondent-company. While that suit was undergoing trial in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra, a petition for the winding-up of the company was filed on May 31, 1963, in the High Court and the court vide its order dated May 31, 1963, directed the winding-up of the respondent-company. thereforee, the winding-up proceedings were transferred by the High Court under Section 435 of the Companies Act to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The appellant then filed an application before the Additional District Judge under Section 446 of the Companies Act for permission to proceed with Suit No. 100/55 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra. This petition was opposed by the official liquidator of the respondent-company and it wa...
The Industrial Credit Co. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. R.B. Seth Ram Rattan and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi511
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) -THIS petition preferred against the order dated the 28th of August, 1964, made by the Sub-Judge First Class, Delhi, faces a preliminary objection. It is urged that the petition preferred under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable because the remedy open to the petitioners was by way of an appeal as envisaged by section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and ignoring the said remedy the petitioners had started the proceedings by filling an application under sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code.(2) In order to appreciate the preliminary objection and the contentions otherwise raised before me, it is necessary that the circumstances leading to the present petition be taken into account. disputes having arisen between the parties, they agreed to refer the same to arbitration. The sole arbitrator made his award on the 20th of December, 1962. The first decision recorded in the award is:- '1.That as agreed and admitted by the parti...
The Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd Vs. Biermans Paper Coating Mills ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1971
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas189(Delhi); ILR1972Delhi431
Hardayal Hardy, C.J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two appeals viz. F.A.O. No. 10 of 1966 and F.A.O. No. Ii of 1966. The petitioner in both the appeals is the Punjab Distilling Industries Limited while the Biermans Paper Coating Mills Limited and G. H. Dupre(2) The original petitions were filed on 14.12.1965 under S. 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 which will hereafter be referred to as the Act. The relief sought by the petitioner was one of rectification of the Register of members of Messrs Biermans Paper Coating Mills Limited (respondent No. 1), wch will hereafter bs referred to as the respondent company with regard to 10,051 fully paid-up equity shares of Rs. 100.00 each. These shares stand in the Register of members of the said respondent at present in the name of G. H. Dupret (respondent No. 2) and they bear numbers 0031 to 10081. Ordinarily, since both the petitions were for rectification of the Register of members of the respondent-company in respect of identical shares, there...
A. Faqir Chand Vs. C.P.W.D. Work Charged Staff Consumers Co-operative ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi135; ILR1972Delhi421
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 was extended to Delhi by a notification dated 8-1-1949 by the Central Government acting under section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, subject to certain modifications. Section 73 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act had repealed the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 insofar as it applied to the province of Bombay. Clause 12 of the Notification modified section 73 of the said Act while extending it to Delhi in the following words :- 'For Section 73, the following section shall be substituted, namely:- Section 73. The Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 in so far as it applied to the province of Delhi, is hereby repealed.' Under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, a dispute between the petitioner and his employers, the C.P.W.D. Work Charge Staff Consumers Co-operative Society Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) was referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 2). The dispute was decided by the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »