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.
Om Prakash Garg Vs. Hans Raj Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: 1972RLR15
Pritam Singh Safeer (1) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 346 and 553 of 1971. Both of these petitions are directed against an identical order passed by the trial court on the 8th of December, 1970. (2) The suits being Nos. 16 and 31 of 1958 were instituted by Shri Hans Raj Sharma impugning the publication by the defendants, which constituted the infringement of the copy-right acquired by him in respect of a book which he had later on published under the name of 'New Course Sharma Guide to Complete English', in the plaint the plaintiff detailed the circumstances disclosing the alleged infringement. Similar Preliminary decrees were passed in both the suits. The ultimate part of these preliminary decrees with which the impugned order became concerned is ;- 'Furthermore a decree for accounts relating to printing and publishing and sales of the 8th special abridged edition of the Sharma Guide to General English and its reprints and for recovery of the amount received...
P.C. Aggarwal Vs. Banwari Lal Kotiya
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi279; 1971RLR93
S.N. Andley, J. (1) While dealing with this first appeal against order, the learned Single Judge (P.N. KhannaJ.) did not decide the question about the competency of a unilateral reference. He considered that,- 'THIS question of unilateral reference to arbitration by one of the parties to an arbitration agreement, the other party having denied the existence of the arbitration agreement, even though unsuccessfully as in this case, or having refused to join the reference, under the relevant provisions of Chapter Ii of the Arbitration Act, when disputes arise.......'was of great importance and he, thereforee, referred the said question to a larger Bench. The decision of this question really depends upon the interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in : [1955]2SCR48 in i-e : Thawardas Pherumal and another Vs Union of lndia(1) and this reference was made because the learned Judge did not agree with the interpretation placed upon this judgment by a Division Bench of the Pu...
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Leela Gurcharan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi308; 1972RLR50
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) An agreement was entered into with the appellant Indian Oil Corporation by one Gurcharan Singh on 25-3-1965 by which Gurcharan Singh was appointed by the Corporation its licensee to operate a petrol pump situated at the outlet of Vinay Marg New Delhi. Gurcharan Singh paid Rs. 10,021-67 to the Corporation as consideration for the agreement. Before the petrol pump could be handed over to Gureharan Singh, however, he died on 15-12-1967. The respondents who are His widow and minor sons obtained a succession certificate and asked the Corporation to perform its part of contract by giving to them the possession and management of the petrol pump as legal heirs of Gurcharan Singh. The Corporation refused to do so. The respondents, thereforee, filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act in this Court alleging that a dispute had arisen between the two parties which had to be referred to arbitration according to the arbitration clause of the agreement. The C...
M. Ramayya and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1971
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi869; 1972RLR71
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This writ petition originally came up for hearing before one of us (Jagjit Singh J.), and by his cider. dated 12th November, 1970, it was referred to a larger Bench. Subsequently, the writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Hardayal Hardy J. (as his Lordship then was) and M. R. A. Ansari J. The Division Beach considered that in view of the general importance of the matters involved in the case, it should be decked by a still larger Bench, and passed an order according on 15th March, 1971. It is thus that this writ petition has been posted before us for bearing. (2) The writ petition was filed on 16th February, 1970. The petitioners are twelve in number. Petitioner No. I graduated in Civil Engineering. The other petitioners also possess similar qualifications viz., an' Engineering Degree or an equivalent thereof. They were all initially appointed on different dates as temporary Section Officer in the Central Public Works Department...
Stressed Concrete Constructions Ltd., Madras Vs. the Union of India, N ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi128
ORDER1. These three wit petitions can be disposed of the common judgment as the points for determination and the facts relevant thereto are identical in all the three petitions.2. These petitions are directed against the order of the Union of India, date 12th June 1961 rejecting the revision petitions filed by the petitioner against the order of the Assistance Collector of customs and collector of Customs by which the good imported by the petitioner were classified under item 63 (28) of the India customs Tariff. The relevant facts may be briefly stated: the petitioner was constructing a bridge across the Palar River in the State of Madras and for the purpose of the said construction the petitioner imported sandwich steel plates also known as machined such anchorage plates. The Customs authorities at Madras assessed these goods under Item No.63 (28) of the India Customer Tariff (1st Schedule and collected the customs duty from the petitioner which was chargeable for the goods under the ...
Mis Stressed Concrete Constructions Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1971
Reported in: 1972RLR11
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) These three writ petitions can be disposed of by a common Judgment as the points for determination and the facts relevant thereto are identical in all the three petitions. These petitions are directed against the order of the Union of India dated 12th June, 1961 rejecting the revision petitions filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs and Collector of Customs by which goods imported by the petitioner were classified under Item 63 (28) of the Indian Customs Tariff. The relevant facts may be briefly stated : The petitioner was constructing a bridge across the Palar River in the State of Madras and for the purpose of the said construction, the petitioner imported sandwhich steel plates, also known as machined steel anchorge steel plates. The Customs authorities at Madras assessed these goods under Item No. 63 (28) of the Indian Customs Tariff (1st Schedule) and collected the customs duty from the petitioner which was chargeable...
Gulzari Lal Bhargava Vs. the Official Receiver-cum-official Liquidator ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: [1972]45CompCas419(Delhi); ILR1972Delhi401
V.D. Misra, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of F.A. 0s Nos. 69 of 1967, 82 of 1967, 85 of 1967 and 91 of 1967. (2) This Court made an order for winding up of Ammonia supplies Corporation Private Limited and directed that all subsequent proceedings be had by the Additional District Judge, Delhi. During the winding up proceedings, the petitioner moved various applications under the Companies Act before the learned Additional district Judge which were dismissed. The petitioner has now come up in appeal to this Court under Section 483 of the Companies Act. (3) Mr. H. R. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator, has raised a preliminary objection. He says that the appeals are barred by limitation. The reason advanced by him is that after the winding up order, the subsequent proceedings were transferred to the Additional District Judge, Delhi, under the provisions of Section 435 of the Companies Act. This section makes the Court of Additional Sessions Judge as 'the Court' within...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi285
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The respondent Bhagwan Das was prosecuted by the appellant Municipal Corporation of Delhi for the commission of the following offence : The- chillies powder which Was being sold by the respondent was found on analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, to contain foreign organic matter of more than one percent which was in excess of the limit prescribed by the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The chillies powder was, thereforee, 'adulterated' within the meaning of section 2(i)(J) of the Act punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.(2) The only ground on which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent is that sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Act had been violated- The Food Inspector stated before the learned Magistrate that he requested customers present at the spot and neighbouring shopkeepers to act as witnesses but they refused. This statement was corroborate...
Sukhbir Saran Bhatnagar and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1971
Reported in: [1972]42CompCas408(Delhi)
S. Rangrajan, J.1. Voss India (P.) Ltd. was incorporated on 5th May, 1966 ; the three petitioners were the promoters-directors. The authorised capital of the company was Rs. 50,000 divided into 500 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The petitioners had subscribed 100, 50 and 50 shares each respectively in the memorandum. It is stated that they merely signified their willingness to subscribe shares as mentioned in the memorandum of association at the time of incorporation but that they did not actually pay any sum towards the said subscription.2. It is further alleged that tbe third petitioner had informed the Registrar of Companies by her letter dated April 7, 1969, that she had resigned from the directorship of the company in the year 1961 but due intimation of the same had not been communicated by the company to the Registrar (Respondent). It is further stated that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 felt discouraged on account of the resignation of the third petitioner and on that account the idea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›