Delhi Court May 1972 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1972 Page 1 of about 39 results (0.021 seconds)Bahadur Singh Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi100; 9(1973)DLT198
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed by Rajasthan Golden Transport Company provate Ltd., through its Managing Director, Shri Bahadur Singh, praying inter alias that (a) a writ of certilorari be issued quashing the proceedings taken against the petitioner and his firm under section 417 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act pending in the courts of respondents Nos. 4 and 5, (b) a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the lawful trade and activity of the petitioner in operating his transport company and for restraining the respondents from challenging the petitioner in future under Section 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, (c) Section 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act be declared to be ultra virus of the constitution and be struck down as vocative of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, and (d) pass any other order or orders as may be deemed fit and ...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of Willcox Buckwell India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi598
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) Willcox Buckwell India Ltd., a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the Transferor Company), incorporated under the Companies Act, has prayed for sanctioning of the Scheme of Amalgamation, which has been duly resolved by it with the Larsen & Toubro Limited, another public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company), on the terms and conditions mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Petition (C.P. 29/71). The same is opposed by the Central Government to which notice went under Section 391 of the Companies Act; the labour union of the. Transferor Company has not opposed the amalgamation as such but only a certain amendment sought for in Company Application No. 177 of 197.1. (2) The transferee Company has an Authorised Capital of Rs. 5,00,00,000 divided into 20,000, 5% Free of Tax Preference Shares of Rs. 100.00 each and 48,00,000 Equity Shares of Rs. 10.00 each. The Issued, Subscribed and Paid up capital of the Trans- feree Company is ...
Tag this Judgment!Arjan Dass Kapoor and Anr. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT461
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the respondent herein, filed an application before the Employees' Insurance Court under section 66 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 claiming recovery of Rs. 3,067.50 paise from the appellants herein in respect of an employment injury sustained by Sohan Singh, an employee of the appellants, while working in the factory of the appellants on 2nd May, 1964. The injury was sustained according to the respondent-corporation, because of the negligence of the appellants in not providing safety-guards to the gears in the lathe achine as required under section 21 of the Factories Act. (2) The appellants, in their reply admitted that Sohan Singh was their employee and that he had sustained an employment injury in the manner stated by the respondent-corporation. The quantum of the compensation claimed by the respondent was also not disputed. It was also admitted by them that no safety-guards had been provided to the gears o...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwan Lal and anr. Vs. Omega Tools (P) Ltd., New Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT505
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) By the order dated the I8lh of May, 1971, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's application filed under order i4, rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereafter called 'the Code' and it is against that order that the petitioners have come up in revision. (2) The petitioners filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The suit was contested and issues were framed on the 26th of October, 1968. The onus of issues Nos. 1 to 10 and 15 was placed on the defendants and the onus in respect of the other issues was placed on the plaintiffs. The petitioners (plaintiffs) moved, an application dated the 18th of May, 1971, under order 14, rule 5 read with section 151 of the Code praying that the issues may be amended. In paragraph 3 of that application it was staled that issues Nos. Ii to 19 deserved to be reframed, as suggested therein. (3) The contention raised before me on behalf of the petitioners, however, is only this that the trial court erred ...
Tag this Judgment!Security and Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. Chandan Singh Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi132
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The appellant filed an application in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, under section 14 of of Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for directing the arbitrator to file his award in Court and for making the award rule of the Court. In pursuance of this application the Court directed the arbitrator to file the award and after the same was filed issued notices to both the parties of the filing of the award. The respondents filed their objections, one of the objections being that the award was based upon a unilateral reference to the arbitrator made by one of the parties to the dispute and that, thereforee, arbitrator had no jurisdiction to enter upon the reference. This objection was upheld by the learned Sub Judge and the application filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the said judgment of the learned Sub Judge. (2) Admittedly, the reference to the arbitration was made only by one of th...
Tag this Judgment!Greenland Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi157
1. This is an application by Messrs. Greenland Foods Private Ltd. (hereinafter called the petitioner) under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for the filing of the arbitration agreement, contained in the Acceptance of Tender No. 16/2/1147/ 68-Pur-V dated the 20th December, 1968 and for directing the Secretary to the Government India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, for appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement. The petitioner entered into a contract for the supply of 8,117 packs (Vegetarian) 5-Men Comp Pack rations at Rs. 42.10 per pack for delivery on various dates to be completed by 25th May, 1969 with the respondent Union of India (Chief Director of Purchases, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Department of Food, New Delhi). The petitioner delivered the contracted quantity of stores in terms of the contract. On completion of the supply of the contracted stores the petitioner submitted the bills for payment to be respondent. The pay and Accounts Officer Ministr...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Behari Mehrotra and anr. Vs. Smarts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi133; 9(1973)DLT176
Pritam Singh Safeer, J.(1) An application dated the 13th of February, 1969, was filed under section 14 of the arbitration Act, 1940, by Shri P. L. Verma, who acting as an arbitrator has made an award on 25th May, 1968, with the prayer that notice of the making of the award be given to the parties and the award be made a rule of the court. The notice was issued to the parties. The petitioner being one of them received the notice, but did not appear in the court. The order recording on 5th April, 1969, discloses that the counsel for the applicant and respondent No. 1 were present and the rest of the respondents were absent in spite of service. Allowing opportunity to respondent No. 1 to file objections the proceedings were adjourned to 24th April, 1969. It was not contemplated by the statute and it was not stated in the said order that the proceedings were to be ex-parte against the absentee respondents. (2) Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, hereafter called ' the Act ' is :- '33. Any p...
Tag this Judgment!The Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. B. Dharam Singh and Co. (P) Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi755B; [1974]94ITR416(Delhi)
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The appellant is the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. which obtained a mortgage decree on the basis of an award which was made a rule of court against Messrs B. Dharam Singh & Co. (P) Ltd and two of its Directors Jagjit Singh Sawhney and Gurcharan Singh Sawhney. (2) Execution Application No. 8 of 1968 was moved by the decree-holder for Realizing the decretal amount by sale of the mortgaged property. The property was ordered to be sold; 25-2-1969 was fixed as the date of the public auction. (3) The Union of India brought to the notice of the executing Court on 18-2-1968, by means of I.A. No. 353/69, that there were huge arrears of income tax against the judgment debtor in respect of which action had been taken for recovery of income tax dues- recovery certificates had been issued by various Income Tax Officers to the Tax Recovery Officer, Delhi for attachment of this very property. The prayers made, in the alternative were : (1) that the proclamation of sale dated 17-12...
Tag this Judgment!Mangoo Mal Kishore Vs. H.K. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT501; [1974]33STC182(Delhi)
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) The petitioners who are dealing in sugar, Khandsari, bura, batasha and misri have challenged three notices issued by the respondent purporting to be notices under section 21(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales. Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter to be called as the Act) under his letter No. ST/W-2/69-70/94 dated January 7, 1970 for the year 1965-66, annexure 19, No. S I /W-2/69.70/95, dated January 7, 1970 for the year 1966-67, annexure 20 and No. Sr/W2'69- 70/96 dated January 7, 1970 for the year 1967-68, annexure 21 on the ground that 'Bura'is sugar and is not liable to sales tax ; that it is not open to the respondent to review the orders of assessment as is sought by him in the aforesaid notices (annexures 19 to 21), nor the respondent is empowered under Rule 71 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rule to re assess the turn-over of the firm as the petitioners firm's turnover was neither under assessed nor escaped assessment; that since 'Bura' is not separately' mentioned in Scheduled I...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Enterprises (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi629
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) Since common, question of law and fact is involved in these two writ petitions, the same shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. (2) The petitioners in C. W. No. 543 of 1971 are the owners of the cinema house known as 'Vishal' situated opposite Rajouri Gardens, New Delhi. In Civil Writ No. 544 of 1971 the petitioners are the owners of the cinema house known as Imperial' situated at Paharganj, Delhi. The petitioners in the two writ petitions carry on the trade or business as motion picture exhibitors and exhibitors of advertisements through slides and through shorts. (3) The petitioners in the two writ petitions have challenged the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter called as 'the Corporation') in its meeting held on 'the 4th January, 1971, whereby the Corporation resolved that as recommended by the standing committee vide its resolution No. 1011, dated the 23rd October, 1970, advertisement tax be charged on the basis of eac...
Tag this Judgment!