Delhi Court March 1972 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1972 Page 2 of about 36 results (0.020 seconds)Piara Lal Anand, Vs. the State Bank of India (National Bank of Lahore ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ495Del
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions 1413/to 1416 of 1970. It was agreed that the facts in all the writ petitions are more or less similar and that the decision in Writ Petition 1413 of 1970 will govern the decision in other writ petitions. The arguments as such were heard in C.W. 1413 of 1970.2. The petitioner joined the service of the National Bank of Lahore, Limited, (hereinafter called the transferor-bank) in 1946. The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act) gives power to the Reserve Bank of India, respondent No. 2, that if there is good reason so to do it may apply to the Central Government for an order of moratorium in respect of a banking company. The transferor-bank was placed under moratorium on 10-1-1970. Section 45(4) of the Act provides that during the period of moratorium, if the Reserve Bank is satisfied that on the conditions mentioned therein it is necessary so to do it may prepare a scheme for the amalgamation of the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Champa Devi Vs. Sat NaraIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi35
1. It is only necessary to state the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. An application for fixation of standard rent was brought by the tenants against Shrimati Krishna Piari who was the landlady of the premises in question. During the pendency of the standard rent petition the landlady died and her legal representative was brought on record who is now the appellant before me. According to the legal representative, the interests of Shrimati Krishna Piari came to an end with her death and, thereforee, the standard rent petition could not continue. This led her to file an application before the Additional Rent Controller which was dismissed on 13th December. 1968. An appeal was taken before Shri Mohan Lal Jain, the then Rent Control Tribunal , who accepted the same on 29th May, 1969, and held that the application of the legal representative claiming that the proceedings for fixation of standard rent should be dropp...
Tag this Judgment!Sat Pal and anr. Vs. Sudershan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi295; 9(1973)DLT1
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The petitioners are tenants of premies situated in a slum area belonging to the respondents landlords. An order for eviction against the tenants was obtained by the landlords on 29th August, 1967. This order is not executable unless the permission of the Competent Authority for its execution is obtained under section 19(1)(b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). In granting or refusing such permission, the Competent Authority has to take into account under section 19(4)(a) of the Act whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted. (2) In the first application to obtain permission under section 19(1)(b) the landlords, inter alia, stated that the tenant Sat Pal (appellant No. 1) was doing the work of a contract along with one Shri Vidya Parkash and was earning Rs. 1800.00 per month. But the defense of Sat Pal was that he was only an employee of M/s. Bharat...
Tag this Judgment!Siri Ram and ors. Vs. Bulaki Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi530B
Hardayal Haidy, J.(1) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court. (2) The appeal arises out of an order dated 4-1-1969 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby he directed the compulsory winding up of the company, namely, Delhi Kiryana Private Limited. The application was filed by some of the creditors of that company under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereafter referred to as the Act) for the compulsory winding up of the company on the ground that it was unable to pay its debts. (3) The petition was opposed by the company both on the ground that the Court in which the petition was filed had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and also that the company was unable to pay its debts. (4) On the first point of jurisdiction the learned Additional District Judge held vide his order dated 9th December 1968, that the Court had jurisdiction. Thereupon the following two issues were framed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Kiryana P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bulaki Dass Devi Dayal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas367(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, C.J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court.2. The appeal arises out of an order, dated January 4, 1969, passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby he directed the compulsory winding up of the company, namely, Delhi Kiryana Private Ltd. The application was filed by some of the creditors of that company under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as ' the Act ') for the compulsory winding up of the company on the ground that it was unable to pay its debts.3. The petition was opposed by the company both on the ground that the court in which the petition was filed had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and also that the company was not unable to pay its debts.4. On the first point of jurisdiction the learned Additional District Judge held, vide his order dated 9th December, 1968, that the court had jurisdiction. Thereupon, the following two issues were...
Tag this Judgment!G.C. Sharma and Sons Vs. Shri R.K. Baweja, Presiding Officer, Labour C ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ475Del
Rajinder Sachar, J.1. A dispute regarding the termination of service of respondent No. 3 was referred by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in exercise of its power conferred by Ss 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) by order dated 1-9-1970 to the Labour Court, Delhi, respondent No. 1.2. A preliminary issue was raised before the Labour Court as to whether the petitioner firm is not an industry under the Act. Respondent No. 1 by the impugned award dated 29-5-1971, has held that the petitioner-firm is an industry and, thereforee, the reference is competent. The petitioner-firm has come up under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the said award.3. The case of the petitioner-firm thus is that it is a firm of Chartered Architects and that the nature of the work done by it is of personal service and, thereforee, it is not an industry within the Act. The respondent-workman, however, maintained that the nature of the work performed ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. Vs. Asa Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1651; 8(1972)DLT177
H. Hardy C.J. (1) This criminal appeal arises out of an order of acquittal passed by a magistrate 1st Class in a case under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, .1954 hereafter to be referred to as the Act. (2) On 12th April, 1968, at 8 20 A.M., respondent Asa Ram was conveying for sale cow's milk at Moli Bazar, Delhi. Shanti Nath Food Inspector purchased a sample which on examination was found to be adulterated due to 1.22 deficiency in non-fatty solids which is equivalent to 14.3 per cent deficiency in non-fatty solids. (3) Two questions were raised before the trial Court, one of them related to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act while the other was in respect of the analysis carried out by the Public Analyst. As resards the question of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act, the learned Magistrate repelled the contention urged on behalf of the respondent and although in the appeal an attempt was made o...
Tag this Judgment!Zia--uddIn Vs. Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi251
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by Zia-ud-Din against Abdul Majid and five others. Abdul Majid has made the choice of remaining absent. The learned Sub-Judge who passed the impugned order dated 21st December, 1971 had been imp leaded as respondent No. 6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 being unrepresented the proceeding qua-them are ex parte in terms of the order made on 10th of March, 1972. 2. The petitioner and Abdul Majit respondent No. 1 allegedly referred a dispute regarding the amount claimed by the petitioner on the basis of a promissory note to arbitration. An award was made on the 17th of March, 1971 in terms whereof a decree was passed in favor of the petitioner for the recovery of Rupees 40,000/- against respondent No. 1 on the 15th April, 1971. 3. The petitioner took out execution and the executing Court passed an order attaching the property bearing Municipal Numbers 177 and 183 to 188, Church Mission Road, Fateh Puri, Delhi as i...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Dass Vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1531; 8(1972)DLT454
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 151 and 152 of 1971 since common questions of law have arisen in both the cases. (2) Lachman Dass, who is a petitioner in both the revisions, deals in Hing and for that purpose has a godown No. 2526, Chambaiwala Kalan, Phatak Habsh Khan, Delhi. On 22-5-1968 Dina Nath, Shanti Nath and H. K. Bhanot, Food Inspectors, visited the godown and called for the petitioner, and took samples of Hing and compounded Hing from different lots. These were sent to the Public Analyst and two samples of Hing and two samples of compounded Hing were found adulterated. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed three complaints under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the petitioner. Complaint No. 138/3 of 1968 pertained to the sample of Hing lifted by H. K. Bhanot, complaint No. 143/3 of 1968 pertained to the sample of compounded Hing lifted by Shanti Nath, where...
Tag this Judgment!Daljit Singh Vs. DIn Dayal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT180
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Civil Revision has been filed by Daljit Singh against an order of Shri P. L. Singla Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dated 5th June, 1970, where by an objection petition filed by the petitioner resisting the execution of a decree against him was dismissed. (2) The respondent. Din Dayal, filed a suit against the petitioner, Daljit Singh; on 19th April, 1963, for recovery. of a certain amount on the basis of a promissory note. The suit was decreed exparte against Daljit Singh on 14th August, 1963. The decree-holder. Din Dayal, filed an execution application within three years from the date of the decree and the same was dismissed as unsatisfied on 27th July, 1966. The decree-holder next filed an application for execution on 9th January, 1970. As the said application for execution was filed mote than two years after the dismissal of the first application, notice under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ordered to be served on the j...
Tag this Judgment!