Delhi Court October 1972 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1972 Page 3 of about 25 results (0.019 seconds)Mehar Singh and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi732
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This petition for revision, by Mehar Singh,Charan. Dass and Ujaggar Singh has arisen in the following circumstances.The above named three petitioners were partners of Messrs Be-BclgaRestaurant & Standard Burfi. Certain disputes arose between themanagemenl and the workmen and the Delhi Administration, videits Notification dated 14/02/1967 referred the disputes to theLabour Court for adjudication. On 5/05/1967, Shri Ved PrakashAggarwal, the Labour Court passed an interim award allowing interimrelief to the workmen. The interim award was that the managementshall pay 50 per cent of the wages, besides Rs. 12.50 per month byway of food allowance, to all the workmen from the date of the orderof dismissal till the final decision, of the case or till the closure of theconcern, whichever is earlier. The interim award was published inthe Delhi Gazette on 6/07/1967, under section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Under section 17A,the award becam...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Kuberdas Katakia and ors. Vs. the Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi433
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Writ Petition has been filed by five petitioners, viz. (1) Jayantilal Kuberdas Katakia, (2) Tryambaklal Kumberdas Katakia, (3) Nagindas Kuberdas Katakia, (4) Mukundrai Kuberdas Katakia, and (5) M/s. Madhu Warp-Knit Industries. The respondents to the Writ Petition are (1) The Union of India through,the Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Trade, and (2) The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. through its Chairman. (2) Petitioners 1 to 3 started a registered partnership firm, M/s. Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. (hereinafter referred to as the 'main firm'), as a proprietary concern. Between 1955 and 1966, they were doing business as traders, importers and manufacturers of cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and woollen yarn under the names and styles of the following registered partnerships: (1)Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. (main firm), v. The Union Of India (2) Madhu Wool Spinning Mills, (3) Madhu Woollen Textile Industries, and (4) Madhu Malimo-Textile Industries.(3) I...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Sohan Pal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1973(26)FLR323]; ILR1973Delhi519; 1973LabIC1451
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of C.W. Nos. 390, 391 and 393 of 1972 so. It is sufficient to state the facts in C.W. 392 of 1972. (2) The first respondent was employed in the petitioner's Mills as a Line Jobber. On 1-4-1964 a settlement was entered into between the management and the mistress Union of the petitioner's Mills providing, among other matters, for payment of gratuity to mistress. On 8-4-1964 a further settlement was entered into between the Management and the same Union wherein the categories of workmen, who were compendiously called mistress, were clearly mentioned. Line Jobbers, according to the settlement, are mistress. (3) The first respondent (workman) was retired on 25-2-1967 on his attaining the age of superannuation and he was paid gratuity due to him in full and final settlement. After a period of nearly 4 years, namely, on or about 11-5-1971, he filed a petition under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that the age of ret...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Devi Ganeriwala Vs. Dhan Raj Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1972RLR259
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This order will dispose of four second appeals from orders Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 50 of 1969 filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), all directed against the identical order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 29th October, 1968, by which the appeals of the tenants were dismissed and order of Mr. P. K.. Bahri, 1st Additional Controller dated 11th March, 1968 was affirmed, finally fixing the standard rent of the premises in occupation of the various tenants at Rs. 45.00 per month. (2) The dispute between the parties relates to a property situated at Kashmere Gate. Delhi. This property formerly consisted of a large hall on the ground floor, but later on in 1963 or so it has been converted into various shops which have been let out to different tenants at a rent of Rs. 90.00 per month each. The respondents in these appeals having taken the premises on rent in 1964, filed objections under section 9 of the Act for ...
Tag this Judgment!G.L. Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander Nijhawan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi129; 8(1972)DLT514; 1972RLR140
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The respondent landlord obtained an order for eviction against the original tenant Kishan Chand Mehra and his sub-tenants Madan Lal Jagg', Oriental Carriers (P ) Ltd. G.L. Kapoor ana Dhillon Transport Company on the ground that a part of the premises was sublet by the tenants to the sub-tenants after the 9th day of June, 1952 without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. The order for eviction was passed by the Controller under clause (b) of the proviso to s 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) The tenant and the sub-tenants appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. But during the pendency of the appeal the tenant withdrew the appeal. The appeal of the sub-tenants was dismissed on merits by the Tribunal. The present second appeal against the order of the Tribunal is filed by one of the sub-tenants only, namely, G. L Kapoor. (2) The first question for decision is whether a sub-tenant can file this appeal when the tenant hi...
Tag this Judgment!