Delhi Court September 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.
Kirti Kumari Baji Saffiba of Rewa Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi677
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The petitioner is the step grandmother of Respondent No. 2 the present Maharaja of Rewa. She avers in paragraph 12 of the petition that she made several representations to the Respondent No. 1, the Union of India for protecting and safeguarding the property and maintenance rights of the petitioner and for sanctioning the initiation of criminal prosecution or the institution of a civil suit against the Respondent No. 2 for vindicating her rights in respect of her various properties and her maintenance right. She refers to 'vide Annexure' but leaves the description or the number of the Annexures blank and in fact she has not filed a single document showing what representations she had made to the Union of India. She says, however, that the Respondent No. 1 arbitrarily refused to grant the same vide Annexure F which is a copy of the letter dated 24-5-1961 by Shri K. N. V. Nambisan, Deputy Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs refusing permission to the petitioner for fi...
Dharam Devi and ors. Vs. Bishamber Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi661
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The respondent herein Shri Bishamber Nath filed an application under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of probate of the will dated 26-2-1960 alleged to have been executed in his favor by one Shri Tilla Ram alias Tara Singh S/o Shri Ganga Ram. According to this application, the said testator was not married and had left no issue. The other relations of the testator were imp leaded as respondents in the said application. None of them contested the application and, thereforee, probate of the will was granted in favor of the respondent herein by the District Judge by his order dated 7-10-1968. Ther after, the present appellants filed an application on 28-1-1969 under section 263 of the Act for revocation of the probate granted to the respondent. The main grounds on which the revocation of the probate was asked for were that the respondent had sup- pressed certain material facts in his application for gran...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Jai Dayal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi363
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This regular second appeal is by the defendants of the suit instituted by the respondents.(2) The respondents came to court with the allegation that an auction had been held in respect of the house bearing Municipal No. 200, situated in village Dhakka. near Radio Colony in Delhi, The hammer knocked down at the highest bid in favor of the plaintiffs of the suit. They were to pay Rs. 3,075.00.(3) According to the allegations in paragraph 2 of the plaint a sum of Rs. 307-50 was paid in cash at the spot and towards the remaining amount of Rs. 2767.50 a sum of Rs. 1,233.00 was adjusted out of the verified claim of Shri Jai Dayal. plaintiff No. 1. The balance amount of Rs. 1534-50 was to be realised out of the adjustment to be made out of a verified claim belonging to one Ushnak Rai who had been associated for the purpose. It was stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the requisite affidavit of Ushnak Rai was filed with the Regional Settlement Commissioner on th...
R.C. Sood and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chawali Devi Chaijhan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi741
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The appellant-company filed an application in the Court of the Commercial Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, under section 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the averments in this application, the first respondent herein entered into a hire-purchase agreement dated 10-8-1960 with the appellant-company in respect of a motor vehicle No. Rjl 7766. Under the terms of this agreement, a sum of Rs. 11,400 was to be paid by respondent No. 1 in twelve monthly Installments. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 stood guarantors for respondent No. 1 for the due performance of the terms of the agreement. This agreement contained an arbitration clause that disputes arising between the parties in respect of this agreement should be referred to the arbitration of the sole arbitrator who was named in the agreement. The first respondent had committed default in the payment of the Installments as per the terms of the agreement and in spite of demand notices i...
Moti Ram Vs. Mangal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1971
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT312
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) The question that arises in this case is whether there is any period of limitation as provided in the Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be called the Act) which governs the case when the arbitrators file the award in the court. This is a revision petition against the orders of the courts below holding that the award dated 12-!-195^ hied by the arbitrators on 25-5-1958 is not barred by time. (2) On 12-1-1958 the petitioner and the respondents agreed to refer their disputes to the arbitration. The arbitrators entered upon a reference and the award was signed on 12-1-1958. No action seems to have been taken by any of the parties until the arbitrators themselves by their application of 25-5-1965 tiled the award in the court. On this notices were issued to the parties. Respondent No. 1 Mangal Singh put in an application on 26-7-1965 saying that the arbitrators' award filed is correct and that there is no cause for remitting it and that the same may be made a rule ...
Management of Band Box (P) Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi465
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner company terminated the services of the first respondent who was working as a Mechanic, under an order dated 9-8-1967 which reads as follows: - 'THISis to write that during the off season we have decided to reduce the strength of Mechanics as there is not enough work for two whole time mechanics. You being the junior of the two mechanics, we hereby give you notice that your services shall stand terminated with effect from tomorrow. You are directed to settle your dues when you will be paid your service compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice besides your earned wages due up to date and wages in lieu of unavailed earned leave, if any due.'It is stated that the letter was personally handed over to him by an officer of the petitioner company S.C. Das on the same day and that the workman refused to accept it after knowing its contents. It was thereupon posted to him by registered post with the following note added to it:- 'IT is reported that w...
Chhabra Electric Store Vs. the Chief Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1971
Reported in: ILR1971Delhi362; [1972]30STC85(Delhi)
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) The following question has been referred to this Court under section 21(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of Chhabra Electric Stores (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealers'): 'WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the order cancelling the registration of M/s. Jai Hind Stores in November, 1956 could be enforced with retrospective effect against the present assessed so as to deprive it of its right to claim exemption of the sales amounting to Rs. 62. 859-11-3 made during the period from 1st April. 1956 to 30th June. 1956 from being included in its taxable turnover for the year 1956-57.'(2) The dealer dealt in the re-sale of all kinds of electric goods during the period 1956-57. The dealer sold goods worth Rs. 62,859-11-3 to M/s Jai Hind Stores, a registered dealer. The registration certificate of Jai Hind Stores was cancelled under s...
Union of India Vs. Savitri Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1971
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi154
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The question of law in this and the connected Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 ol' 1969 is whether the services of the common Respondent No. 1 Dr. (Mrs) Savitri Aggarwal could be validly tenanted from the post of Medical Superintendent, Victoria Zanana Hospital by the Central Government (hereinafter called the Government) alone, (appellant herein) as held by the learned Single Judge in the order appealed against or whether they could be terminated by t-he Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter called the Corporation) appellant in L.P.A. 28 of 1969. as contended by both the appellants.(2) The answer to this question is plainly in favor of the former alternative and the only difficulty in giving it has arisen from an unfortunate divorce of law from fact and a conflict between status and contract. Let us first look at the legal provisions relating to the post and the status of the incumbent theirof. The Victoria Zanana Hospital is managed by the Delhi Municipal Cor...
Raj Rani Vs. Moolan Bai and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi236
ORDER1. The petitioner (landlady) had filed a petition to evict the late Chetan Dass on the ground of personal necessity and non-payment of rent in April, 1965. The application was dismissed on 15-3-1966, but the landlady had filed an appeal. During the pendency of that appeal Chetan Das died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The appeal was accepted on 9-3-1967 and eviction was ordered on the ground of personal necessity. The second appeal preferred to this Court was dismissed on 10-3-1970 two months time having been granted for vacating the property.2. An application was presented to the Competent Authority under the slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 on 5-5-1970. The same was dismissed on 12-3-1971 on the ground that the respondents could not get alternative accommodation. An appeal which was preferred to the Financial Commissioner by the landlady was also dismissed on 17-5-1971.3. Though a number of points were taken in the petition the main argumen...
O.N. Talwar Vs. the Collector of Stamps
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1971
Reported in: 7(1971)DLT319
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is a reference under Section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter to be called the Act) made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi.(2) A partition deed was executed between Shri O. N. Talwar, petitioner. on his own behalf and as natural guardian of his minor sons, Shri Rai Talwar and Shri Ranjiv Talwar of the first part and Shrimati Kanta Talwar wife of Shri O. N. Talwar of the second part on 26.7.1966. With this partition deed was attached a schedule to form part of the deed in which total assets were shown as Rs. 7,68.239-64. The amount of respective liabilities to he discharged by the erstwhile members of the family were shown as Rs. 4,07,115-09 leaving a net divisible asset of Rs. 3,61,124-55. The same was divided amongst the lour members in equal shares of Rs. 90,281-14. In the body of the deed it was stated that whereas it was obligatory on the Hindu Undivided Family to make adequate provision for maintenance, education and p t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »