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.
Yad Ram (Deceased) Through His Lrs. Vs. Bir Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi475; 1974LabIC970; (1974)IILLJ306Del; 1974RLR305
S.N. Andley, C.J. (1) These writ petitions were heard together I as they involve a common question of law and they will be disposed of by this judgment. The common question of law relates to the interpretation and scope of section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. (2) To state it generally, what happened was that the individual petitioner in each of these petitions alleging himself to be a workman made an application to the specified Labour Court under the aforesaid section of the Act for the determination of the amount of money due to him and/or for computation in terms of money of the benefit to which he was entitled. The respective employer, in his reply be fore the specified Labour Court, denied the existence of the relationship of workman and employer and, thereupon, following the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab High Court and ',some decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court, which shall be referred to herein...
Dalip Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi34
Safeer, J.(1) The appellant having been found guilty by the Special Judge, Delhi under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 hereafter called 'the Act' and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and having been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count, both sentences to run concurrently with the further imposition to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 because of his conviction under the Act, in default whereof he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, has come up against the judgment dated the 2nd of August, 1972. (2) The case against the appellant is best disclosed by the statement of Shiv Dayal from whom the appellant had allegedly demanded the bribe of Rs. 20.00 for giving an inspection report regarding the scooter which had been involved in an accident.(3) Public Witness 1 Shiv Dayal alleged that he had been driving a three- wheeler scooter bearing No. DLR-2072 and he had purchased it from one Madan Lal although the actual transfer t...
K.K. Suri Vs. V.N. Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR304
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition raises the grievance that the petitioner was denied full opportunity to adduce evidence at the stage at which he was examining witnesses for urging that the charge be framed against the accused. (2) In the course of the arguments I was referred to the various stages of the proceedings before the trial Court and perused the order passed on the 24th of September, 1973 summoning the accused in exercise of the jurisdiction provided by section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called 'the Code'. (3) After collecting the evidence in the manner prescribed by section 202 and postulated in section 203 of the Code the trial Court reaches a stage when it has to apply its mind for determining whether action is to be taken under section 203 or section 204 of the Code. (The provisions are then reproduced.) (4) Section 203 of the Code gives the power to the trial Court to dismiss the complaint where after considering the statement on oath, if any, made by ...
Mongol Das Vs. Lt. Governor, I.G., D.i.G., A.i.G., S.P., D.S.P.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR329
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) Petitioner Mangal Dass was confirmed as a Sub Inspector of Police in the Delhi Police Force in March, 1965. The promotions of the officials of the police force are dealt with in Chapter Xiii of the Punjab Police Rules 1934, Vol. Ii, as applied to Delhi. According to Rule 13.1 (1) promotions from one rank to another and from one grade to another in the same rank shall be made by selection tempered by seniority. Efficiency and honesty shall be the main factors governing selection. Before a Sub-Inspector is promoted to the post of an Inspector of Police, the procedure of selection is laid down in rule 13.15 which is (...) (2) The petitioner complains that the procedure prescribed by rule 13.15 was violated by the respondents (the police authorities operating under the rules) in the following manner:- (A)In 1965 a test was held for selection from among the Sub-Inspectors for inclusion in List 'F' in acc (3) The petition was resisted by the Police authorities whose re...
Kamla Chopra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi15; 1974RLR145
ORDER1. One Shiv Lal Chopra insured his life with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and took out three Policies Particulars whereof are as under:Policy No, Date Place Amount 26988057 Dec. 1966 Kanpur 20,000,00 27061288 May 1967 Kanpur 20,000,00 8108987 Dec. 1967 Varanasi 25,000,002. Shiv Lal died on September 20, 1968 at Sopar in Bikar. His widow demanded the insurance money from the Life Insurance Corporation. The Life Insurance Corporation by their three letters dated February 20. 1970, repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on the around that Shiv Lal was suffering from heart ailment and consulted medical men and took treatment from them and did not disclose these facts in his statement and instead wave false answers. This was their reply with regard to two policies dated May, 1967 and December, 1967 which were taken at Kanpur and Varanasi. As regards the third policy taken out in December, 1966 from Kanpur the Corporation said that nothing was payable as Policy had lapsed by n...
The Republican Party of India Vs. the Election Commission of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi509
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) Though the process of election to Parliament and the State Legislatures is a sine qua non to the functioning of democracy under our Constitution, the right to contest an election is a creature of the provisions of the Constitution, Statutes of Parliament and the Rules framed there under. An important matter for a candidate in fighting an election is to posses a symbol. The Election Commission of India has, thereforee, issued 'The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968' (hereinafter culled the Order) under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and all other powers enamling it to do so. (2) The scheme of the Order is as follows. Symbol may be allotted to a political party or to an individual candidate not belonging to any party. Paragraph 6(2) (B) lays down the legal requirements to be satisfied by a political party to become a recognised political party. It is as follows:-- '6.Classificati...
Sudershan Kumar Arora Vs. Satish Arora and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi885; 1974RLR299
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) Prakash Narain, J., against whose judgment this appeal has been preferred, had, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the father (Dr. Sudarshan Kumar Arora) against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi permitting Namarata Arora a girl aged about 10, to proceed to the United States where her mother (Dr. Satish Arora) is at the moment, imposed certain conditions in addition to those already imposed by the learned Additional District Judge. (2) The facts relating to this unfortunate domestic controversy have been noticed at length by the learned Additional District Judge and it does not appear necessary to set them out once again. The Aroras were married according to Hindu rites at Delhi on 21-7-1962. Namarata Arora was born on 6-5-1963. Without noticing the details (some of which are disputed) that led to the couple falling out with each other, it is sufficient to notice for the purpose of this appeal that the wife filed a petition for judicia...
Krishna Wanti Puri Vs. the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi19
1. On February 19, 1968, Smt. Krishna Wanti Puri widow of Late Dharam Pal Puri instituted an action against the Life Insurance Corporation for the recovery of Rs, 85,000/- and profits and interest on the four policies.2. Dharam Pal Puri when he was alive insured his life with the Corporation and took out four policies, particulars whereof are as under:-Date Policy Amount Policy No. 12-10-1959 Rs. 10,000/- 6081583; 12-6-1961 Rs. 25,000/- 6151357 10-3-1964 Rs. 45,000/- 6297731 15-6-1964 Rs. 5,000/- 6315544 3. Dharam Pal Puri died on 5th August 1964. The widow claims the amount of the four policies from the Corporation on the ground that she is the assignee. The Corporation resists the suit. The main ground of defense is that Dharam Pal Puri was suffering from heart disease, that he know about his ailment, that he had consulted doctors about his disease but fraudulently suppressed these facts. In the proposal forms and the personal statements he made declarations knowing them to be f...
B.T. Menghani Vs. the Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi159; ILR1974Delhi443
S.N. Andley, C.J.(1) The respective petitioner in each of these writ petitions is the owner of a building. The buildings concerned are situate in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi South Extension Part Ii or Haus Khas. New Delhi. The buildings arc governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Act'. Each of the petitioners is being prosecuted in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate in Delhi under sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Delhi Development Act. 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Development Act' for an alleged contravention of the Master Plan of Delhi by using or permitting the use of the building otherwise than in conformity with the Master Plan which is alleged to be prohibited by section 14 of the Development Act. (2) The principal-respondent in these writ petitions is the Delhi Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' constituted under the Development Act. The Judicial Magistrate concerned is also a proform...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›