Delhi Court October 1973 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.
Manjari Sen Vs. Nirupam Sen
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi42
ORDER1. By this Petition under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner prays that the petition (Hindu Marriage Act case No. 184 of 1973) filed by the respondent and pending in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi within the jurisdiction of this High Court be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Patna, within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. The respondent is the husband and the petitioner is his wife. The aforesaid petition has been filed by the respondent under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of -judicial separation Primarily on the ground of mental cruelty.2. The Parties were married at Patna on February 4. 1971. After the marriage the Petitioner lived with the respondent at Delhi for about twenty days when she went back to Patna but returned to Delhi in or about May 1971 and stayed here Up to about July 1971. She again went back to Patna in July, 1971 to join her college and she remained there till ab...
Jaswant Rai Vs. Abnash Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi689
Avadh Behari, J.(1) At the conclusion of the hearing of the suit I announced the judgment. I passed a decree for Rs. 50.000.00 in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till payment and proportionate costs. I now give my reasons. (2) By an agreement in writing dated 2nd October, 1963, Jaswantrai plaintiff (hereinafter called the 'purchaser') agreed to purchase and Smt. Abnash Kaur defendant (hereinafter called the 'vendor') agreed to sell a dwelling house No. 3, Southend Road, New Delhi, for Rs. 9,35,000.00. In this agreement the vendor stated that she was the 'absolute and exclusive owner' of the house which she had purchased from S. B. Basakha Singh by sale deed dated January 18, 1956. Two material terms of this agreement may here be reproduced : '12.On this assurance given by the vendor the vendee has entered into this transaction the vendor further assures the vendee that she will transfer the said (house) as its...
Marwar Tent Factory Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi27; 1974RLR218
S.N. Shankar, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 357, 494 , 942 of 1971 and 691 of 1972. The question involved in all these petitions is as to the scope and effect of clauses 18 and 18-A of the standing General Conditions of Contract entered into between the Union of India through its various officers and the contractors. They were all heard together. The controversy has arisen in different contexts. It will thereforee, be appropriate to set out the facts of each case separately.C.W. 357 of 19712. The petitioner, M/s. Marwar Tent Factory in this petition claims to be a tent manufacturer on the approved list of contractors of the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India. In pursuance of the acceptance of tender dated March 13, 1968 the petitioner agreed to supply tents of a total cost of Rs. 62,03,650/- of the agreed specifications and quality to the Union of India. According to the terms and conditions of the contract, 95 per cent. of the agreed p...
United Auto Tractors Vs. Urvashi Rohtagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR68
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) Respondent sued the appellant for eviction and one of the grounds was non-payment of arrears of rent. The Controller made an order on 18.11.72 U/S 15(I) that arrears of Rs. 15,750.00 be deposited within a month. The tenant deposited only Rs. 14,750.00. Respondent finding the deposit short by Rs 1,000.00 made an application U/S 15(7) for striking out the defense. Appellant Was served with this application on 24.1.73. Appellant then on 27.1.73. applied that due to bona fide mistake deposit less by Rs. 1,000.00 was made and he be allowed to deposit the same. It was allowed on the same day but the counsel did not know of this at least until 1.2.73. Deposit was made on 7.2.73 and application U/S 15(7) waa also fixed for same day Delay was not condoned and defense was struck out. Appellant appealed against the same and remained unsuccessful. He then filed second appeal.] It was held:-(2) Taking into consideration the working days in January and February, 19 3 the Rent Con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›