Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi385B
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The main question for decision in this civil writ petition is whether the issue of notice dated 2nd March 1970 to the petitioner by the Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, to show cause why adjudication proceedings as contemplated by section 23-D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act Vii of 1947 should not be taken against him, after Indian currency notes of the value of Rs. 50,000 were seized from his person as a result of his search under section 19A of the said Act on 3rd March 1969, is a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 19G of the said Act entitling the Director of Enforcement to retain the said currency notes until the disposal of the said proceeding. According to clause (7) of section 19A the expression 'docume(2) This civil writ petition was filed on the supposition that no notice had in fact been issued wiin the period of one year from the date of the said search; but this question has been set at res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi180
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) Originally three petitioners, namely, Sanjiv Chandra, Arun Shashi Mago and Anil KumarAggarwal, filed the writ petition challenging the changes made in the admission rules, incorporated by the Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi, in the prospectus for the admission .to the M.B.B.S. course in 1971-72, on the ground that the changes so incorporated are illegal, without authority and unconstitutional. Further relief claimed by the petitioners was that the classification done by the respondents for admitting 100 students on merit and 39 students through entrance examination be struck down and declared illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 29 of the Constitution. The petitioners also sought a direction by way of a writ of mandamus, or any other suitable writ or direction directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for the 100 seats reserved for admission on merit basis and that their cases be considered on the basis l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi883
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) The petitioner in this case, Shri Chaman Lal Chhabra, an officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police, was on the night between the 31st December 1967 and the 1st January 1968 in-charge of the Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi. On that night the free flow of traffic was obstructed, at certain places in the Connaught Place area, by groups of merry-making persons. Not only some cars and other vehicles were stopped and damaged but some persons even misbehaved towards ladies, and there were a few incidents of stabbing and snatching away of ornaments. The authorities naturally took a serious view of these acts of rowdism. As it was considered that adequate patrolling was not done by the petitioner and the situation was allowed to go out of control, the petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were started against him. (2) The petitioner is a Police officer of long standing and had even rendered military service for about seven years b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi56
1. The landlord Gurbaskh Singh filed a petition for eviction of the tenant Mangal Chand. An order for eviction in respect of a part of the premises was passed by the Controller under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). The tenant appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal against the order or eviction from a part of the premises and the landlord filed cross-objections against the dismissal of the petition for eviction in respect of the rest of the premises. But both the appeal and the cross objections were dismissed by the Tribunal. The tenant thereupon filed the second appeal against the order of eviction of a part of the premises and the landlord filed cross-objections against the dismissal of his eviction petition in respect of the rest of the premises.2. During the pendency of these proceedings the landlord terminated the contractual tenancy of the tenant by a notice to quit with the effect that the tenant became what is popularly called on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1972CriLJ541
ORDERVyas Dev Misra, J. 1. This Revision is directed against the judgment of Shri J. D. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reducing the sentence to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.2. The petitioner was found selling panir at his shop at Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi on 7th November, 1968 at about 9.30 P. M. by H.K Bhanot Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 600 grams of panir was purchased as sample for analysis on payment of its requisite price. It was divided into three equal parts and put in three dry and clean bottles after putting in 16 drops of formalin in each bottle as enjoined by the rules. The Public Analyst vide his report Exh. P-E dated 21st November, 1968 found the panir adulterated because of a deficiency of 15.03 per cent in fat of the dry mater per cent. Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint under Section 7/16...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1972Delhi72
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in this case are sons of Chuni Lal, defendant No. 5. They have filed a suit for declaration and injunction in which they seek a declaration that two bungalows in Civil Lines. Delhi bearing Nos. 23 and 25 at Raipur Road belong to and are the property of the joint Hindu Family comprising of the plaintiffs and defendants No.5 and that defendants Nos. 1 to 4 be restrained by means of a permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of these two properties by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5. The circumstances which have led to the filing of the suit, briefly stated are that one Seth Beni Pershad, the grand-father of plaintiffs is claimed to have constituted a joint Hindu Family with his sons and grandsons which family was the owner of various properties as well as running business. Seth Beni Pershad died in December, 1948 and there after the joint family was constituted by Chuni Lal, defendant No. 5 and his three sons, the plaintiffs as well as M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi477; [1972]85ITR261(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J. (1) An interesting question of law has been raised in a reference made by the Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated 26-11-1965 for the assessment year 1952- 53 and reads :- 'WHETHERon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, thepayment of Rs. 22,951.00 to the Vanaspati Manufacturers Association of India is a revenue deduction against the income of the previous year.?'(2) The petitioner which will hereafter be described as the assessed or assessed company, runs a number of mills including a mill for the manufacture of Vanaspati Oil. During the previous year ending 30th June 1951 the Vanaspati Manufacturers Association, Bombay of which the assessed is a member, debited the assessed with a total sum of Rs. 22851.00. This amount represented the assessed's share of propaganda expenses incurred by the Association. The letter sent by the Association intimatical to the assessed that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 8(1972)DLT123
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This second appeal from order has been filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act real with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the tenant against the appellate order of the Control Tribunal dated December 3, 1970bywhich he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated June 10, 1970 dismissing the objections of the tenant against execution of the order for eviction which had been passed against him. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant before me is the tenant while the respondent is the landlord and owner of the premises in dispute. On September 24, 1966 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (i) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). In paragraph 18 of the petition, the landlord had specified the ingredients of clause (e) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi614
S.N. Andley, J. (1) This petition has been mod by Balraj Madhok to challenge the election of Shashi Bhushan, respondent No. 1, to the Lok Sabha in the General Elections which were held in March, 1971. The other contesting candidates are respondents Nos. 2 to 8. In addition Madhu Ram Subharao. respondent No. 9, has been imp leaded by the petitioner. Tiis nomination paper was, according to the allegations in the petition, improperly rejected. Respondent No. 1. the returned candidate, has filed his written statement in which, apart from the reply on merits, several preliminary objections have been raised. Respondent No. 6. Som Dutt Joshi, one of the contesting and defeated candidates has also filed a written statement. The petitioner has filed his replication to the written statement. (2) On July 16. 1971. seven Issues which were ordered to be treated as preliminary Tssues were framed and this order will dispose of the aforesaid preliminary Issues, (3) The following dates were fixed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi723
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The petitioner. Messrs Remington Rand of India Limited, is aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi (Shri R. K. Baweja) over-ruling certain preliminary objections to the industrial dispute adjudicating a reference made by then Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, by his order dated 28th March 1970 and the further corrigendum issued on , June 1970. (2) Messrs Remington Rand of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) has its registered office and head office at Calcutta; it has also a Regional office at Delhi at which the main business is the sale and service of typewriters and office equipment. There are three branches of the company at Chandigarh, Jaipur and Amritsar and two depots at Jammu and Simla. The branches and depots are under the over-all administrative control of the regional office, the day-to-day administration being looked after by the branch managers. The regional office is no doubt under the control of the head office at...
Tag this Judgment!