Delhi Court December 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.
A. Damodar Vs. Bimla Alias Parmila
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-27-1973
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT15
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal by the husband against the order of the Additional District Judge dt. 8 5.73, awarding to respondent wife maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 25.00 p.m, for herself and Rs. 20.00 p.m. for her children living with her and Rs. 100.00 as litigation expenses on application by her U/S 24 of Hindu Marriage Act hereinafter called the Act. (2) The respondent has brought an application U/S 10 of the Act for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty which is pending in the Court below. Along with that she filed an application U/S 24 claiming maintenance pendent lite @ Rs. 120 p.m. and Rs. 200.00 as litigation expenses. The court found that of 2 elder children lived with the father while younger lived with the wife... . (3) Section 24 provides that where in proceedings under the Act either the wife or the Judge. It is also pointed out that sub-section 2 of Section 169 further provides that if before the hearing of appeal any question of law ari...
Dharm Vir Singh Vs. Goodwill India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi655
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Civil Revision has been filed by Dharam Vir Singh against an order, dated October 10, 1972, passed by Shri O. P. Dwivedi, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge set aside an ex parte decree passed against the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 100.00 as costs and shall also deposit the decretal amount in the Court by 20th October, 1972, failing which the application for setting aside the ex parte decree filed by the petitioner shall stand rejected. (2) The petitioner, along with one Ram Nath, purchased a truck from Respondent 1 herein, M/s. Goodwill India, 17/B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, and respondent 3, Jai Parkash, was the guarantor. On a dispute arising between the parties, the same was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award and applied for making the award a rule of the Court. Shri H. S. Bakshi, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, issued notice to the petitioner. As th...
Jagjit Singh Sawhney Vs. Hukam Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR252
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) Respondent had a plot of land at Friends Colony, N. Delhi. Appellant on 28-11-63 agreed to buy the same far Rs. 3,95,000.00 with condition that he would build a cottage and annexe within a certain time and on completion of same respondent would transfer the plot on payment of agreed price. Earnest money of Rs 40,000.00 was paid. Appellant instead of building a cottage began constructing a house and could not raise construction within stipulated time and a supplemental agreement was executed extending the time Appellant could not complete construction. Respondent then sued fur mandatory injunction to vacate the plot and appellant sued him for specific performance of contract. Both were consolidated and it was decreed on 18-4-68 that appellant should deposit Rs. 3,55,000.00 within 4 months and respondent would then execute sale deed. Appellant failed to deposit and 'the respondent applied U/S 28 of Specific Relief Act. for rescision of the contract. Single Judge acce...
Hanuman Prasad Ganeriwala Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1451; ILR1974Delhi896
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) This appeal is against an order dated October 4, 1972 of a learned Single Judge of this Court. On an application submitted on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. V. D. Misra J.. held against Hanuman Prasad Ganeriwala that offences 'under sections 182, 196, 199, 200, 209, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, as referred to in section 195, sub-section (1), clauses (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure appear to have been committed in or in relation to the proceedings of this Court' and 'that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into these offences, and complaint be made to a Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter'. (2) For appreciating the contentions which have been raised in the appeal it is necessary to state certain facts. A property at No. 1 Raj Narain Road, Delhi, on an area of approximately 3,700 square yards, was purchased by the Mercantile Bank...
Delhi Guest Houses Vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR267
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) (THERE was shortage of good hotel accommodation and the Governmenit encouraged the construction of same. The D.D.A. passed a resolution on 24-12-70, that request for setting up a hotel should first be scrutinised by the Director General of Tourism and if recommended favorably then local authority should entertain building plans. The L & D Office also told the petitioner by letter dt. 11-12-71 that petitioner should approach the D.G. of Tourism and the D.D.A. Petitioner acquired 7. Aurangzeb Road, N. Delhi on 30-3-71. It applied for requisite consent to the D.D.A. who gave the same on 29-4-71 on condition that space be left for widening of the Road. The D.G of tourism had recommended petitioner's case as most welcome. Petitioner then sought collaboration from some international hotel company and got plans prepared. It took the same for submission to respondent who refused to accept the same on the basis of resolution dt. 13-12-71 which required a No Objection certifica...
Sardari Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi592
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Writs 954 of 1971, 211 to 218 of 1972, 249 to 251 of 1972 and 697 of 1972. The main question on which the decision of these petitions depends is as to nature, scope and amplitude of the power conferred on the President by Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution. (2) The petitioners in these writ petitions were employees of the Delhi Police Force. On April 14, 1967 they were dismissed from service. Each order of dismissal purported to be under clause (c) of proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and was signed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs on behalf of the President of India. The petitioners challenged the validity of these orders, amongst others, on the ground that the President had no occasion to deal with their cases and the power under Article 311(2)(c) had not been exercised by him but by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India which he was not competent to do ...
Pritam Singh Vs. Parmeshwari Devi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR257
Prakash Narain, J. (1) [ONE Rattan Singh and Asa Singh were owners of suit property. They had taken plot on lease from Govt. They sold premises to respondents. Latter sued appellant for eviction on the ground of personal need. Controller and Tribunal granted eviction order In second appeal, appellant made an application saying that as sale by Rattan Singh etc was without the permission of Govt., same was invalid and Govt. had cancelled the lease and effected reentry and the appellant attorney to Govt. Respondents admitted cancellation but pleaded that appellant was estopped u/s 116 of Evidence Act.] After narrating these facts, judgment para 7 onwards is :- (2) The only ground for eviction is the bonafide personal need of the respondents. If that ground subsists even to day then only can the order of eviction against the appellant be upheld. The fact that the Govt. has determined the lease in favor of Asha Singh and Rattan Singh and has also exercised its option of re-entry is not in d...
Ram Dhari Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi49
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) This petition and the other four petitions Sca 56 of 73 in Crl. Appeal 46 of 1967, Sca 57 of 73 in Crl. A. 48 of 1967, Sca 59 of 1973 in Crl. A. 47 of 1967 and Sca 60 of 1973 in Crl. A. 45 of 1967, raise a common question of law. It would be appropriate to dispose them of by a common order. For the purposes of this order the facts of Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1967 are being taken.(2) By this application under Article 134 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the grant of a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.(3) The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that electricity could not be said to be 'property' within the meaning of section 22 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the petitioner under section 420 Indian Penal Code . accordingly was not proper and could not be sustained under the said section. In support of the contention reliance was placed on Avtar Singh v. The State of Punjab : 1...
Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi282
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises interesting questions of law in relation to the implementation of and the rights and liabilities arising under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act 54 of 1969, hereinafter for convenience referred to as the Monopolies Act, and the construction of its provisions.(2) Petitioner No. 1, the Trieveni Engineering Works Ltd., is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2, Shri Kanhaya Lal Sawhney, is a Director of petitioner No. 1 with effect from February 26,1971. He was previously a Director of the Upper India Sugar Mills Limited but on that company's amalgamation with petitioner No. 1 became the latter's Director. The amalgamation of the two companies came about as a result of a formal order of this court dated February 8, 1971 and was effective as from the close of business hours on January 31, 1970. (3) The Monopolies Act came into force on J...
Mahavir Metal Works P. Ltd and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi73; [1974]95ITR197(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. Is Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as inserted therein by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act of 1972) wholly or party a law enacted ' for the purpose of imposting or levying any tax or penalty' within the meaning of Art. 31(5)(b)(i) and /or is it a ' law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Art. 39(c) ' within the meaning of the first part of Art. 31-C of the Constitution If not, is it wholly or party unconstitutional as being an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to hold property under Art. 190(1)(f) or as authorizing the State to acquire property otherwise than for a public purpose thus contravening Art. 31(2) of the Constitution of as discriminating between similarly situated persons who evade tax liability and conceal income contrary to Art. 31(2) of the Constitution? The following is the back-ground of law and facts out of which the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »