Delhi Court January 1972 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.
Kuldip Singh Vs. Krishan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR274
Prithivi Raj, J. (1) The appellant could file appeal up to 1 8.72. He fied the sane on 10.7.72 and made an application that copy of the order of trial court which had been applied for and not delivered may be allowed to be filed later. This application was allowed. Appellant obtained the copy on 24.7.72 and handed over the sune to his lawyer's clerk next day for filing in Court. The said clerk due to rush of work mislaid the copy by putting the same in some other brief and he found the same on 7.8.72 by means of a covering letter of his lawyer's assistant. The case was taken up for arguments on 11.10.72 when the respondent took the preliminary objection that the appeal should be dismissed as the copy of the order of trial court was filed beyond time. Appellant was granted time to meet the objection by filing an application. He did so and in support filed his affidavit and that of his lawyer's clerk. High Court discussed the cases Ganesh Datt vs. Hirde Beliari AIR. 1925. Oud. 189; Infer...
Bal Kishan Vs. P.R. Varshneya, Competent Authority (Slum Areas)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT390
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by a tenant, Bal Kishan, against an order, dated 10th August, 1971, of Shri P. R. Vershneya. Competent Authrity, Slum Areas Delhi, in case No. C-A-1(11790) of 1970, granting permission to the landlord, Mst. Bismilla Jan (respondent No. 2) under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act), to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the Competent Authority. (2) Respondent No. 2 claims to be the owner and landlady of a Kothri with two doors bearing Municipal No. 1458 (new)/733(old). Ward No. Iii, Lambi Gali, Chhatta Abdul Razak, Phatak Habush Khan, Delhi. The petitioner is her tenant in respect of the said Kothri on a rent of Rs. 5.00 per mensem. She filed an application before respondent No. 1 under section 19 of the Slum Areas Act alleging that the petitioner -tenant was in arrears of re...
M.M. Mital Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi671
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) After having withdrawn a previous writ petition No. 1150 of 1971, this new writ petition No. 38 of 1972 has been filed by Shri M.M. Mital, substantially on the same allegations, challenging the validity of the order of compulsory retirement passed against him by the Government of India on 25-9-1971 under clause (h) of Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulations.(2) The impugned order gave notice to Shri Mital 'that he shall retire from service with effect from the date of expiry of three months from the date of service of the notice'.(3) Clause (h) of C.S.R. 459 (corresponding to clause (j) of F.R. 56) under which the petitioner has been retired is as follows:- 'NOTWITHSTANDINGanything contained in this rule the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in ...
Bhagwanti and anr. Vs. Haveli Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi271; 8(1972)DLT217
1. This second appeal has been filed by the tenants, Shrimati Bhagwanti and Arjan Dass, against an order of Shri Mohan Lal Jain, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dated 6th June, 1968, in dismissing the said appeal as not being maintainable for the reason that the order of Shri A.P.Chowdhary, Additional Controller, Delhi, dated 3rd May, 1968, appealed from, was only procedural and interlocutory in nature and, as such was not appealable under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.2. Haveli Ram, claiming to be the landlord in respect of Quarter Nos 13-14, Block No.20, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, filed a petition, dated 27th December, 1965, on 3rd January, 1966, before Shri A.P. Chowdhary, Additional Controller, Delhi, for eviction of three alleged tenants in respect of the said premises, viz (1) Shrimati Bhagwanti, (2) Sunder Dass son of Durga Dass and (3) Arjan Dass, under cls. (3) (sic) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In colu...
Chandra Financiers (P) Ltd. Vs. Gurcharan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi589
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This civil revision has been filed by M/s. Chandra Financiers (P) Ltd. against an order of Shri M. L. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 4th October, 1965, reversing an order of Shri H. S. Bakshi, Subordinate Judge, dated 8th February, 1965, and setting aside an award made by a sole arbitrator. (2) The parties, viz. Lachman Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hirer') and Gurcharan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Guarantor') on the one hand and M/s Chandra Financiers (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'owners') on the other, entered into a hire-purchase agreement, dated 28th April, 1960, relating to a T.M.B truck supplied by the latter to the former. (3) The said agreement contained an arbitration clause which reads as follows:- '26(A)This Agreement is agreed to have been accepted and performed in Delhi, which is the Head Office of the owners and all matters, disputes arising out of and in connection with this Agreement are to be settl...
Chetan Dass and ors. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1972
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT238
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This regular second appeal is directed against the decree dated the 18th of September, 1964, founded On a judgment of that date by an Additional District Judge, Delhi. (2) The plaintiffs-appellants instituted a suit on the 20th of March, 1963, against the respondents, Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi. The plaintiffs alleged that they were carrying on the business of sawing timber on plot No. 10188, situated in Motia Khan, Paharganj, Delhi, which at one time was owned by Delhi improvement Trust. The plot had been leased out to Muslims, who became evacuses on the partition of the country, and the lessee rights therein became evacuee property. Those rights having been allotted to the plaintiffs, they began paying rent to the Custodian and after the plot was acquired by the Central Government the plaintiffs continue paying rent-to Managing Officer. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it was alleged that the defendant sent a bill to the plaintiffs demanding the proper...
Sham Lal and ors. Vs. Bir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1972
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT121; [1973(26)FLR161]; 1973LabIC957
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is a Writ Petition institued by Sham Lal and four others to challange an award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal dated 21st July, 1971, whereby orders promoting the five petitioners to the post of Head Mechanic in the service of the Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking, Delhi Municipal Corporation have been declared to be invalid. (2) The first three petitioners. Sham Lal, Rameshwar Das and Balkishan were promoted to the post of Head Mechanic by an order dated 27th April, 1968 and the other petitioners, Mohd. Tahir and Brahm Datt were promoted by a similar order dated 2nd July, 1968. The first three petitioners were formerly Fitters Class I and the other two, were Fitters class Ii in the service of the Undertaking An industrial dispute was raised by the workmen of the Undertaking to challenge the promotion of the petitioners on the ground that promotion had to be made strictly in order of seniority from the cadre of 1st Class fitters. Thus according t...
Ram Pratap Vs. the Birla Cotton Spinning and Weavingmills Ltd., Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi124; 8(1972)DLT351; 1972RLR37
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) This second appeal from order is directed against the order dated 7th June, 1968, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside the order of the Rent Controller. Delhi, dated the 10th November, 1967. and remaded the case to the Bent Controller for decision on merits. (2) The only question for determination in this appeals as to whether it is open to the appellant to raise the question of lack of notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act after a long lapse of 4 years after the parties had proceeded to trial and led evidence on merits of the case. (3) With a view to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties it would bs expedient to record a few facts of the case. The respondents who are the owners of the kothi in dispute situated in Khilonewala Bagh near Rana Partap Bagh, filed an application under section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the ap...
Delhi and anr. Vs. Management of Blue Star Engineering Co. (Bombay) Pr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi649; 1973LabIC754
ORDERSunder Section 33B themselves may be either administrative or quasi-judicial according to the context. An order transferring one industrial dispute from one Labour Court to another for purely administrative reasons, such as a transfer of the concerned officer, or in order to re-distribute the work between different officers, and it is so stated in the order of transfer itself, would be purely administrative and could not be said to be quasi-judicial. On the other hand, if, as in the present case, when proceedings are pending before a Labour Court and evidence is actually being recorded by that Court any transfer from that Court to another on the ground that the presiding officer was prejudiced against one of the parties must obviously be made after notice to the other side. Propriety and fairness would require that the concerned judicial officer should not only be apprised of what is stated against him but also must be given an opportunity of making his own comments on such allega...
Kanwar Lal Gupta Vs. Amar Nath Chawla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi291
S.N. Andley, J.(1) The petitioner had summoned Police Reporters of the C.I.D. who had been deputed to take notes of the speeches delivered during the public meetings of the Congress in support of the Congress candidate in the Delhi Sadar Parliarnsntary constituency between the period 5-1-1971 to 15-3-1971. These witnesses were required to bring with them,- 'ORIGINAL reports taken by them and the copies if any of the said reports sent to the various authorities or the precise of the said speeches or the points noted i.e. the entire record including the the names and particulars of the speakers who were invited to attend, who spoke, the literature including land bills posters pamphlets etc. distributed or exhibited or referred to in the speeches or otherwise including the estimate of the number of persons attending such public or other meetings and the slogans uttered from the stage and from the public during such meetings and such other records relevant for the purpose of proving this f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »