Delhi Court August 1972 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Amrit Lal Sehgal Vs. Mamleshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi75; ILR1973Delhi43
Avadh Behari, J.1. This is a Regular First Appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge Delhi dated October 5, 1964. The material facts in this appeal are as follows:A reference under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act was made by the Land Acquisition Collector Delhi to District Judge relating to the apportionment of the compensation in respect of Khasra Nos. 279/1.280/1, 283/1 and 285/1 measuring 22 bighas and 7 bids was situated within the revenue estate of Chaukari Mubarak Bagh. The land Acquisition Collector made his award No. 1233 dated 22-12-1961 for an amount of Rs. 101244.50 on account of compensation in respect of this land. The compensation amount was sent to the Court of the District Judge. There were two rival claimants before the Land Acquisition Collector to this amount. On the one hand Mamleshwar Pershad and Kampta Pershad sons of Onkar Pershad claimed this amount and on the other the appellant Amrit Lal Sehgal was the claimant. The Land Acquisition Coll...
Nanak Chand Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi81
1. Preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petition assails the scope of order of remand made by the Financial Commissioner on 7th January, 1972, while disposing of Appeal No. 437 of 1971, which had been filed under Section 20 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The circumstances which may be noticed are that Maya Das respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 19 of the Act for permission to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner The application so filed was dismissed by the competent authority. In appeal it was urged that opportunity and not been given to the landlord to file affidavits in rebuttal of those filed by the tenant. It was urged that it stood established from the record that on the date of the application filed under Section 19 of the Act i.e., on 15th September, 197-0, the present petitioner's son Virender Kumar was living with him and his income was available to the tenant fo...
Abdul Wahid and ors. Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi82
ORDER1. This petition directed against the order made on 29th May, 1970, by the collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter called 'the Act') dismissing the application as being barred by time was filed under Section 18(3) of the Act read with section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is conceded that no sub-section (3) was enacted by the Central legislature in Section 18 of the Act and the sub-section relied upon was introduced by the Punjab Legislature.2. Even where a State Legislature has the right to legislate on any subject covered by an entry in the Concurrent List its enactment will be effective only within the scope of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. That provision is:--'254. (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of any existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent list, ...
Ram NaraIn and ors. Vs. Cantonment Board Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi84
ORDER1. The petitioners who are the joint owners of free-hold land comprised in Khasra No. 1066, Survey No. Cb 34 (Old) situate in village Naraina through this writ petition seek a declaration that the sanction applied for by them in their notice dated 29th June, 1970 (Annexure No. I ), under Section 179 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') served on the Executive Officer of respondent No. 1 intimating the intention of the petitioners to erect cinema house on the land in question, is deemed to have been unconditionally granted under section 181 of the Act and that resolution No. 32, dated the 7th October, 1970, Annexure 5, passed by respondent No. 1 is illegal, unauthorised an without jurisdiction. A further declaration is sought that respondent No. 1 is legally obligated to consider the application dated the 12th August, 1971, Annexure No. 6, seeking extension of time for construction of the cinema house as the statutory sanction for construction of the bu...
Assistant Collector of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Amar Nath Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1972
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi971
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) In connection, with import of certain quantities of Delta Hydro Carbosone in alleged contravention of certain provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the Sea Customs Act, 1878, Amar Nath Gupta and Sat Pal Jain were tried by a Magistrate. There was one complaint by an Assistant Collector of Customs against Amar Nath Gupta and Sat Pal Jain and another complaint by another Assistant Collector of Customs against Sat Pal Jain alone. They were, however, acquitted in both the cases on May 18. 1970. (2) Special leave to appeal against the orders of acquittal was applied for by the concerned Assistant Collectors of Customs, on whose complaints proceedings had been instituted against the accused. In the case against Amar Nath Gupta and Sat Pal Jain special leave to appeal was granted on September 15, 1970 and in the case against Sat Pal Jain on October 19, 1970. Separate appeals in ...
Mohan Lal Gupta and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1972
Reported in: 1972RLR131
M.R.A.Ansari (1) The petitioner herein is a proprietor of a firm of licensed drugs. Shri G.P. Saxena is a Drugs Inspector appointed under section 21 of the Act. Under section 22 of the Act, he has got the power within the local limits of thearea for which he is appointed to inspect any premises wherein any drug or cosmetic is being manufactured and to take sample of any drug or cosmetic which is being manufactured or sold or stocked or exhibited for sale or is being distributed. In exercise of these powers, Shri G. P. Saxena the inspected business premises of the petitioner on 11.7.1968 and purchased a sample of Tedral. Tablets purporting to have been manufactured by M/S Martin and Harris (Pvt) Ltd. After following the procedure prescribed under section 78 of the Act, he sent a portion of the sample for analysis and the latter after testing the sample reported than he sample was misbranded. thereforee, a complaint was filed by Mr. Saxena against the petitioner for an offence which is p...
Sham Lal Vs. Joint Hindu Family Firm Ram Chand Shri Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi841
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Sham Lal against the judgment of P. N. Khanna J., dated March 16, 1971, in Execution Second Appeal No. 107-D of 1966, whereby the learned Judge allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower appellate Court and the trial Court dismissing an execution application, and restored the execution application for being further, proceeded with. (2) One Mangia Kumhar was a tenant of a premises (land), and a joint Hindu family firm Ram Chand Siri Ram, of which Siri Ram was the Karta (Manager), was the landlord of the said land. The said landlords filed a suit, no. 394 of 1959, in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, for the eviction of the tenant, and the suit was decreed on May 25, 1960, by Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi. The appeal against the decree filed by the tenant was dismissed on July 19, 1961. The tenant Mangal Kumhar died some time thereafter leaving behind him...
Jagjit Singh Vs. P.K. Dutt Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: 1973RLR723
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This Revision Petitions raises an important question of law concerning the right of a tenant to institute an interpleader suit against two or more persons who are disputing between themselves the question as to who is the landlord of the premises. (2) The petitioner before me is Jagjit Singh, one of the persons claiming to be the landlord of Shri P.K. Dutt, the plaintiff in the suit. One of the persons is Gurbux Singh an advocate from Jullundur. It appears that the present petitioner had instituted proceedings against P.K. Dutt before the Rent Controller where a statement was made by all these three persons that they mutually agreed that the decision in the present inter-pleader suit would be binding on them. An order in this behalf was passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The petitioner alleges that no such statement was made before that authority, but I am not in a position to accept this as being correct in view of the order actually passed in that case. The o...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Delhi1
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Letter Patent Appeal has been filed by the Union of India and the Secretary of the Forward Markets Commission, against the judgmt of M. M. Ismail J' dated July 27, 1967, whereby the learned Judge allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 360 of 1967, and declared that a certain condition contained in the Certificate of Registration, dated December 7, 1963, issued to Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited as well as a direction contained in a letter, dated June 2, 1964, from the Forward Markets Commission, Bombay, to the said Messrs Rajdhani Grain and Jaggery Exhange Limited, were beyond the powers of the Commission. The learned Judge also restrained the Union of India and the Forward Markets Commission from enforcing the said condition and direction against Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exechange Limited. (2) Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited is a Joint Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as ''the Company') incorporated under th...
Madan Lal Vs. Competent Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: ILR1972Delhi857
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Madan Lal, a tenant, against the judgment of v. S. Deshpande, J. in Civil Writ Petition No 97 of 1968, pronounced on April 1, 1969, dismissing the said writ petition and confirming an order, dated December 5, 1967, passed by the Competent Authority, Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Slum Areas Act'), and whereby permission was granted to the landlord. Dr. R.v. Singh, to execute an order of eviction obtained by him against the tenant under proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (2) The appellant herein was a tenant since 1943 in respect of shop No. 896, in Ward No. Iv, Nai Sarak, Delhi. Dr. R.v. Singh was the landlord. Alleging that the tenant had sublet the shop and had parted with possession of it, the landlord filed a petition on July 28, 1962, before the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, praying that the tenant may be ordered to be evicted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »