Delhi Court August 1972 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Rising Sun Press, Delhi Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors., Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi167
ORDER1. This petition directed against the order made by the trail Court on 3rd January. 1972. is being disposed of along with Civil Revision No. 173 of 1972. by this order because both of them are connected with each other.2. A suit was filed to which the petitioners were imp leaded as defendant No. 2 Shri Ram Narain respondent to these two petitions instituted the suit on the footing that he was the owner in possession of house No. 415. Chitla Darwaza. Chawari Bazar. Delhi and that the defendants who were seeking to instal a meter on one of the walls of the said house had no right to fix the wire and the meter and that the Court might pass a decree permanently restraining the defendants from installing any meter on the wall of house No. 415. Defendants No. 2 (petitioners) filed a written statement dated the 31st of July. 1970. in which after raising several preliminary objection replying to facts in paragraph 1 it was stated that para. No. 1 of the plaint was not being denied. In par...
Bishamber Nath Vs. the Drugs Licensing Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi294; ILR1973Delhi288
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This partnership firm styled 'Gobind Medical Hall' held four licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The constitution of the firm changed in or about April, 1971 by including the petitioner as a partner. Owing to the change in the constitution new licsnces were issued on or about the 27th May, 1971 in Forms 20, 21, 20-B and 21-B as per the rules made under the said Act. (Copies of those licensees are Annexurcs A.B.C and D to the Writ Petition). The licenses in Forms 20 and 21 are for authorised retail sales; licenses in Forms 20-B and 21-B are for wholesale dealings in respect of drugs mentioned. The licenses in Forms 20 and 20-B are for drugs which include those coming under the definition of other than biological and other special products, whereas the licenses in Forms 20-B and 21-B include drugs coming within the definition of biological and special products as defined in the Rules. 'Novalgin' falling within the category of Schedule drugs (manufactur...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Darshan Kumari ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi150
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two First Appeals, Fao 120 of 1969, filed by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, herein called 'the Insurance Company and Fao 8 of 1970, filed by Darshan Kumari, who was injured in the accident, and is referred to herein as 'the appellant'. Thakar Dass, who was driving the offending vehicle is repondent No. 4 in Fao 120 of 1969 and respondent No. 1 in Fao 8 of 1970. He is referred to herein as 'the driver'. Onkar Singh is respondent No. 2 in Fao 120 of 1969 and No. 3 in Fao 8 of 1970. He is said to be the owner of the vehicle and is referred to herein as 'respondent No. 3'. Vas Deo, also said to be the owner is respondent No. 3 in Fao 120 of 1969 and No. 2 in Fao 8 of 1970. The appeals have arisen in the following circumstances. (2) On May 6, 1964, the appellant was about 11 years and 6 months old. On that fateful day at about 7.00 p.m. she was trying to cross the road in front of the New Delhi Railway Station from t...
Hulas Rai Jhamman Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi73
1. The appellant firms suit for recovery of Rs.4,275.76, as damages for non delivery of parcel containing hand loom woollen shawls booked by it as Chandni Chock Delhi Booking Agency of the Northern Railway on November 14, 1961 for transport to an delivery at Silao, was dismissed by the learned sub-Judge I Class Delhi on the ground that the goods in question were excepted articles within the meaning of section 75 of the India Railways Act and as such the Railways were not liable for their non delivery as the value thereof had not been a declared by the appellant consignor at the time of booking. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge Delhi confirmed this finding but held that it had been proved that the goods in dispute booked by the appellant were of the value of Rs. 4,275,76 the amount claimed in the suit. The appeal was dismissed with costs. 2. The main question that has arisen for consideration in this second appeal thereforee is about the scope and true construction of sec...
Sunita Sabharwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR377(Delhi)
S.N. Shankar, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 85 of 1967, 165 of 1967, 166 of 1967, 167 of 1967, 168 of 1967, 169 of 1967, 170 of 1967, 171 of 1967, 172 of 1967, 173 of 1967, 174 of 1967, 196 of 1967 and 197 of 1967. The petitioners in all these petitions are minors. Declarations of voluntary disclosure of income under Section 24 of Act No. 15 of 1965 were submitted on their behalf through persons other than the natural guardian which were returned by the Income-tax Officers concerned with the objection that the same were invalid as they did not bear the signature of the natural guardian of the minors. The petitioners in all the petitions have assailed these orders. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the points involved in the petitions are the same. They have, thereforee, been heard together. For purposes of this order, facts in C. W. No. 85 of 1967 alone are being referred to. 2. The petitioner in C. W. No. 85 of 1967 is Miss Sunita Sabharwal, minor ...
H.C. Sharma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi90
Prakash Narain, J. (1) On an award dated the 6th October, 1961 given by Shri G. S. Gaitonde in'a'reference of disputes to him between M/s. Hanuman Oil Mills, and the Union of India under an alleged Arbitration agreement between parties contained in the General Conditions of Contract governing A/T No. A/3/23/58 dated the 31st October, 1958, the Union of India on November 4, 1961, moved an application under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the court of Shri N. C. Gupta, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, for. the filing of the said award, making it a rule of the court and passing a decree in terms thereof. Notice of this application was issued to M/s. Hanuman Oil Mills and its three alleged partners and Shri G. S. Gaitonde was called upon to file the award in court. After the same was filed in court, notice of the filing of the award was given to the parties. M/s. Hanuman Oil Mills filed two sets of objections against the said award, one being dated the 30th April, 1962, and ...
Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR87
V.D. Misra, J. (1) Ajit Singh prays for a writ of certiorori for quashing the order of the Inspector General of Police, Delhi, awarding the penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service on the ground amongst others that the provisions of Rule 16.38 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules were not complied with. (2) On 106 1970 the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Traffic. He received a letter from the C.P.W.D. through the D.S.P. Traffic which was to the effect that a constable be posted on Probyn Road since the C.P.W.D. were to carry out the repair of a high deep sewer. The Traffic Inspector of the Circle had directed the petitioner that he should inspect the spot and report if a constable was really needed for duty there. The petitioner being new to the area, since he was posted there on 7.6-1970, asked constable Jagir Singh to meet him on 11.61970 at Chowki Shakti Nagar. The petitioner met constable Jagir Singh at 7.45. a.m. and there after proceeded to inspect the sp...
P.T. Gajwani of R.C. Abrol and Company (P) Ltd., (In Liquidation), New ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1972
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas376(Delhi); ILR1973Delhi752
P.N. Khanna, J.(1) The only question involved in this case at this stage is, whether an application made by the Company in liquidation under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, against one of its former customers for recovery of price of goods sold to him before it was ordered to be wound up, is not governed by the Limitation Act: (2) These proceedings arose during the course of winding up of R. C. Abrol and Company Private Limited, which was ordered to be wound up by an order dated August 19, 1966 of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi, on a petition dated March 4, 1966, filed for this purpose. On August 18, 1971 the Official Liquidator filed a petition under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 446 and section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 against A. R. Chadha and Company and four others, one of whom (respondent No. 2), was the Managing Director of the Company before its winding up and the other three (respondents Nos. 3 to 5), were said to have been wo...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Sis Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1972
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT264
D. K. Kapur, J.(1) This is a Revision under the Code of Civil Procedure a-ainst the decision of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 24th August, 1971 passed during the hearing of a re- -ference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby the application for a refernce mder Section 18 of of the Act was peimitted to be amend- aj. The facts of the ca'e are a little unusual because the original reference petition Bioved by the respondent Sis Ram to the Land Acquisition Collector had mentioned in the application field No. 38/1 as one of the areas involved in the acquisition, la the reference, made under Section 19 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector stated that field No. 38/1 was sot included in the acquisition and. thereforee, no refe- rence concerning the same could be made. While staling the situation and extent of the land involved in the reference under Section 19(1) of the Act, the Collector stated in a note that this land was not being incluled in the reference as it...
Union of India Vs. K.L. Bhalla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi160
M.R.A. Ansari, J. (1) The appellant and the respondent herein entered into an agreement styled as Contract No. CWE/D-17 of 1955-56 for the improvement to the distribution system of water supply in Delhi Cantonment. This agreement contained an arbitration clause by which disputes arising between the parties to the agreement relating to the subject-matter of the agreement were to be referred to the sole arbitration of the arbitrator named in the said agreement. As a matter of fact, disputes did arise between the parties and, thereforee, these disputes were referred without the intervention of the Court to the arbitration of the sole arbitrator named in the agreement. The arbitrator made his award on 23.10.1958 and filed the same into Court. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to both the parties. Objections were filed by the appellant herein. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to state the nature of the objections raised by the appellant at that stage. After hear...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »