Delhi Court May 1972 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1972 Page 3 of about 39 results (0.021 seconds)P.L. Lakhanpal Vs. the Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi178; 9(1973)DLT155
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) After the construction of Article 21 of the Constitution by the majority in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, the personal liberties protected by Article 21 may be classified into two groups. In the first group would fall the right to be free from wrongful conefinement. In the second group would tall numerous otner personal liberties which are not expressly enumerated in Article 21 but which have been implied therein on the analogy of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S Constitution. The right of a person to travel abroad and the power of the Legislature and the Government to restrict that right fall in this group This right is excluded from Article 19(1)(d) The law restricting this right need not, thereforee, satisfy the test of reasonableness embodied in Article 19(5). It need only satisfy the requirement of 'procedure established by law' within the meaning of Article 21. In Peter Samauel Wallace v. The Regional Passport Officer, decided by a Division...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Dhirta Ram Vs. the Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi112
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated the 6th of November 1969 by which the trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application preferred under Order 13. Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that the original agreement dated the 6th of April 1959, which was filed with the application be permitted to be produced in Court and be received in evidence.2. The application was contested. In paragraph 1 of the application it was stated that the plaintiff had purchased the house in suit from Shri Ganga Sahai son of Shri Katara in April, 1959 by a writing. The document sought to be produced with the application was that writing. The trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the document like the one sought to be produced could be easily procured. It was observed:--'Such a back dated document on a white paper could be prepared at any time with the actual thumb impression of the witnesses and the executant'.Proceeding a little furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Nanak Chand Shadiram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi647; [1973]92ITR592(Delhi)
Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) The assessment year in this case is 1958-59 for which the relevant accounting year is the financial year ending on the 31st of March, 1958. (2) The assessed is a registered firm on which a penalty of Rs. 1,21,112.70 was levied under Section 271(l)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the new Act. The return was due on 23-7-1958, but the same was filed on 13-2-1961, that is roughly after a delay of 31 months. The Income-tax Officer applying the provisions of Section 271(l)(a) of the new Act calculated the penalty livable at 2 per cent of the tax for each month of default. That figure would come to Rs. 1,49,000.00 and odd which would have been in excess of 50 per cent of the tax. The Income-tax Officer accordingly restricted the quantum of penalty to 50 per cent of the tax thereby levying the aforesaid amount of penalty. (3) On appeal one of the contentions inter alia, was that the initiation of the proceeding for the levy of penalty should have...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi138; ILR1973Delhi779
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) On the 8th of June, 1972 the O.S.D. (Vigilance) Iron and Steel Control Calcutta issued the following letter to the Hindustan Steel Ltd. :-'Supplies of raw materials have been suspended to a large number of firms. Criminal cases have also been instituted with the C. B. 1. against some firms for misutilisation of Steel materials etc. The statement (appendix A & B) show the particulars of such firms and are forwarded to all concerned' (page 850 of the paper book). In appendix 'B' item 21 refers to the Fir lodged with C. B. 1. Bombay on 9th Febraury, 1972 against M/s. Bharat Barrel & Drum . in respect of 'sale of imported materials in the black market.' The title of the Schedule 'B' is as follows, 'Criminal cases instituted with the C. B. 1. during 1971-72 up to date for violation of Iron and Steel Control Order 1956.' (2) It was contended for the Union of India and the Iron and Steel Controller that the petitioner Bharat Barrel and Drum ., had been found transportin...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1862; 9(1973)DLT68
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) On 8th October, 1968, Food Inspectors H. K Bhanot and V. P. Anand went to the shop known as 'Roshan Di Kulfi' situated at Ajmal Khan Road. Karol Bagh, Delhi. Madan Lal, an employee was working at the shop. H. K. Bhanot. Food Inspector disclosed his identity to Madan Lal and purchased 900 grams of Kulfi prepared with 'Pista' and nuts on payment of Rs. 7.50 as its price for the purpose of analysis. The Food Inspector divided the sample in three parts and filled it in three clean and dry bottles. The Food Inspector added 24 drops of formalin in each bottle. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, one part was given to the accused and the third part was retained by the Food Inspector. H. K. Bhanot, Food Inspector, prepared the inventory. Exhibit P. C/1 with regard to the taking of the sample of Kulfi. Similarly, V. P. Anand, Food Inspector, purchased 900 grams of Kulfi prepared with 'Pista' and nuts on payment of Rs. 7.00 as its price for the purposes o...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi35
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of R.S.A. 37-D of 1959 and R.S.A. 79-D of 1959 as common questions of law arise in both the second appeals. The facts giving rise to both the appeal may, however, be noticed. (2) In R.S.A. 37-D of 1959, the property involved is house no. 85 in Sundar Nagar, New Delhi, the construction of which was completed in October, 1956. The New Delhi Municipal Committee, in whose area this property fell at the relevant time, sent a notice under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on January 7, 1957 to the plaintiff/respondent proposing assessment of the new building to house tax and after hearing the objections, the said (committee finalised the assessment on 25th February, 1957 (Ex. P. 2). Thereafter, a demand for Rs. 951-2 As. (Ex. P.3) for house tax from 5th October, 1956 to 31st March, 1957, was sent to the plaintiff. This led the plaintiff to file a suit for injunction restraining the defendant. Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. the Presiding Officer ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi653; (1973)ILLJ378Del
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) Five questions arise for consideration in this Letters Patnent Appeal from the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court: (1)What are the limits of interference by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the award of a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal? (2) What are the limits of interference by a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal with the findings arrived at in a domestic enquiry-whether it is confined to cases where there is no evidence and whether even a tittle is enough if it is not reasonably sufficient to support the finding? (3) Whether hearsay can be relied upon in domestic enquiries falling within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act? (4) When and how can a fresh, enquiry be made by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute, referred to it, concerning the termination of the services of a worker? (5) What are the considerations which may be taken into account for granti...
Tag this Judgment!insurance Company Limited Vs. Vimal Rai and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi115; [1974]44CompCas316(Delhi); 1972RLR91
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 56 of 1967 filed by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company and No. 58 of 1967 filed by Gurcharan Singh against the judgment of a learned Single judge (S. N. Andley, J.) dated 16th March, 1967 by which the learned Judge modified the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 20th July, 1965. Smt. Vimal Rai and two others (respondent before us) are the legal representatives of Balwant Rai deceased who died in the accident. The Orient Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (appellant in one appeal) is hereinafter referred to as the insurance company. Gurcharan Singh (appellant in the other appeal) is the erstwhile owner of the motor cycle involved in the accident and is hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, referred to as the seller while M. G. Krishna Roy, respondent No. 6 in the first mentioned appeal, is hereinafter referred to as the purchaser. Gulzari Lal respondent No. 8, proprietor of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors. Vs. Mandir Sita Ramji and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi218
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, who had issued a writ quashing the' notification dated 7th D November, 1968, issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of certain lands in village Karkar Doma, Shahdara, Delhi. (2) The facts of the case are that on November 13, 1959, the Delhi Administration issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Aquisition Act, 1894, (hereina (3) One of the points that were canvassed before us was that the notification under section 6 has been rightly quashed inasmuch as the hearing contemplated by section 5-A of the Act was not given by the Collector before making his recommendations to the Delhi Administration and even the Delhi Administration did not apply its mind to the objections of Shree Sita Ram Bhandar prior to making of the declaration under section 6 of the Act. We, thereforee, without prejudice to the contentions o...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Hem Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1972Delhi275; 8(1972)DLT473; 1972RLR77
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) The Appellant, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited in these two connected appeals, S. A. O. No. 200/67 and 208/67 is the landlord of the premises occupied by respondent No. 1, Hem Chand, as a tenant. The agreed rent of the premises was Rs. 165.00 per month. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent. The landlord issued and served notice of demand and ejectment dated August 10, 1963 on him demanding arrears of rent and also complaining that he had unauthorisedly sublet the premises under his tenancy. The tenant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 only towards the arrears demanded Within the notice period. On February 24, 1964, the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 14 of the Delhi. Rent Control Act (hereafter called 'the Act') on grounds of non-payment of rent and unauthorised subletting and otherwise parting with possession of the premises. The alleged sub-tenants, M/s. Bipin Kumar Satish Kumar, were also imp leaded as respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!