Delhi Court March 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.
Pindi Dass Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT216
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This revision petition is in consequence of the jurisdiction exercised by the Addl Sessions Judge, Delhi under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called 'the Code'. After receiving the recommendation contained in the order dated 4th of August 1972 the Registrar issued notice thrcugh counsel to the respondents other than Mohd. Ismail who had appeared in person before him On the 13th of September, 1972 Shri Jagdish Narain appeared for the petitioner and Shri K.N. Chitkara appeared fur respondents No. 1 to 13. Notice was directed to be issued to respondents No. 14 to 23. On the 23rd of October, 1972 Mr. Sunil Kumar Raizada appeared for the counsel for the petitioner and Mr M.L. Srivastva appeared for Mr. K.N. Chitkara counsel for respondents No. 1to13 and all other respondents excepting respondent No. 16 were present in person. Fresh notice was issued to respondent No. 16. The order dated the 20th of December, 1972 made by the Registrar was to the eff...
Niamat Bi Vs. S.L. Dhani Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1973
Reported in: 1974RLR413
Prakash Narain, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges order dated May 3, 1969 (Annexure A to the petition) passed by the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement , Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter called 'the Act'. (2) Ganga Bishan, respondent No. 2, filed .an application under section 19 of the Act for permission to institute proceedings for obtaining a decree or order of eviction against the petitioner from House No. 6832, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi on the ground of sub-letting, personal bona fide requirement and non-residence of the petitioner or any other member of her family in the said premises for more than six months. The petitioner contested this application. She admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but: denied the existence of any valid ground for eviction. Regarding her alleged non-residence in the said premises it was stated that she had gone to Karachi on June 5, 1965 and had retu...
Indian Institute of Technology Vs. Mangat Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT475; (1974)IILLJ191Del
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The common question of law involved in this letters patent appeal and the connected writ petitions (Civil Writs 497 of 1971 and 686 of 1969) is whether the termination of the service of an employee of a statutory corporation contrary to the provisions of the subordinate legislation made by the said corporation relating to the conditions of service of such an employee is a nullity remediable by the relief of reinstatement. (2) Employment is originally and still basically a contract between the employer and the employee. This bilateral relationship is, however, often found to bs superseded partly or wholly by status which is contrasted with contract. Status is determined extrinsically by law and not by agreement between parties. Status may supersede contract by affecting either of the two parties to it, namely, the master or the servant. (3) The ideal contractual relationship is when both the master and servant are individuals. Even if a master is a partnership fir...
Hari Chand Mahajan Vs. Attar Chand and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: 9(1973)DLT519
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) This is plaintiff's application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with section 151 C. P. C' seeking review of the order passed by me on 10th May, 1971, whereby the defendants were allowed to file written statement in the suit. The ground on which the order dated 10th May, 1971, Is sought to bereviewed Is that the suit originally was filed under Order 37 rule 2, Civil Procedure Code but at the time the defendants were allowed to file the written statement it was not observed that the procedure applicable to the suit was a summary one The suit being a summary one. it was incumbent upon the defendants to have applied under Order 37. Rule 3, C.PC. for permission for grant of leave to defend the suit within ten days of the receipt of the summons which, in the instant case it is alleged, the defendants have not done The failure of the defendants to comply with the provisions of order 37 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code it is contended in the application, has cast an obligation on the...
Union of India Vs. Ravi Dutt
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR464
T.V.R. Tatachari and Rajindar Sachar, JJ.(1) Respondent was an officiating sub-inspector. There was a complaint, of corruption against him and the S.P. held an enquiry and then passed an order of dismissal which was upheld in departmental appeal. He then filed civil suit claiming that the order was invalid for non compliance with Punjab Police Rules, Rules 16. 38 (1) and (2). Trial Court decreed the suit and the order was upheld in appeal. In R.S.A. the matter was referred to D.B. The D.B, found that there was non-compliance with Rule 16. 38 (1) which requires sanction of D.M. before investigation. Contention of the Government was that the D.M. had given his approval after the investigation and that was enough, and it relied upon Union of India v. Suraj Bhan LPA. 86-D./65 D./ 23-5-69 (F.B.) in which it was held that the said rule was not mandatory. Respondent relied upon Union of India Vs . Ram Kishan : AIR1971SC1402 , contending that it was held in it that the rule was mandatory. The ...
Neiveli Ceramics and Refractories Ltd., Vadalur (Tamil Nadu) Vs. Hindu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi105; 10(1974)DLT158; ILR1973Delhi452
Aggarwal, J.1. This first appeal by Neiveli Ceramics and Refractories Ltd. Arises out of a petition filed by Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Limited (hereinafter called the 'petitioner-company') for the revocation of Patent No. 103411 granted in favor of the respondent to the petition on January 13, 1966.2. The controversy in appeal is with regard to the meaning to be given to the expression ' a High Court ' in Section 26 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). According to the appellant, the expression 'a High Court' in the said section means the High Court which would otherwise have jurisdiction over the person against whom the petition is filed under the Act or over the subject matter of such petition, and not 'any' High Court. According to the petitioner-company the aforesaid expression means any High Court and the jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain the petition under Section 26 of the Act is not circumscribed by limitation laid down in Sec...
Life Insurance Corporation Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT26; 1974RLR499
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 177 of 1968 and 445 of 1968, The point involved in both the petitions is whether the assessment list prepared by the New Delhi Municipal Committee under section 66 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 for the 'ensuing year' can be amended under section 67 of the Act after the expiry of the 'ensuing year'. Facts of Civil Writ No. 44.5 of 1963 are as under:- 'the petitioner in this case. Life Insurance Corporation, is the owner of the building known as 'Jeevan Vihar building' situated in Parliament Street, New Delhi. The construction of his building was completed in 1962. Portions of the building were let out in 1963. A portion of the basement, according to the petitioner, remained vacant during the years 1963-64. 1964-65. 1965-66 and 1966-67. A part of the vacant portion of the basement was let out in February. 1966 and the remaining portion was subsequently let out in December, 1966. The respondent New Delhi Municipal Commit...
Udby Bir Singh Vs. Shakumtla Devi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ187; 9(1973)DLT382; 1973RLR412
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This petition is in consequence of a recommendation made by Shri S. C. Chaturvedi.Addl. Sessions Judge. Delhi in exercise of the power given by section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called the Code,' (2) The petitioner frled a complaint dated the 20th May, 1972. against six persons. After having recorded the statements of the complainant and the witnesses produced by him the trial court purporting to act under sections 203/204 of the Code passed the following order on the 6th of June, 1972 :- 'Complainant present in person with counsel. After hearing the counsel for the complainant and also after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by him at this stage. I am of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against Smi. Snakuntla, Mangander Singh and Bodh Raj under section 498 read with 34 lPC Accordingly these three accused persons be summoned for the next date on payment of P.F.C. fixed for appearance on 7th July, 1972' Section...
Prem Sarup Puri Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi499
S.R. Angarajan, J.(1) This Order will dispose of Cr. Misc. (SCA) 23 and 24 of 1973 also. All these three Applications have been filed by P. S. Puri under Article 134(l)(c) of the Constitution of India for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court. (2) A criminal prosecution is pending against Puri. The concerned Judicial Magistrate framed a charge against him under Section 468 I. P. C. in the matter or obtaining delivery of Passport No. 1-454020 as alleged therein. (3) As against the framing of the said charge Puri filed Cr. Revision 224 of 1972 to quash the said charge; the State had filed another Criminal Revision 265 of 1972 urging that the learned Magistrate ought to have framed charges under Sect(4) Shri R. L. Mehta, learned counsel for the State has opposed these applications on the only ground that the order passed by us is neither a judgment nor a final order within the meaning of Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. For this he relied on the decision of the Sup...
Raghubir Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi108; 9(1973)DLT352; 1973RLR331
1. The point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether a landlord can evict a tenant on the ground referred to in clause (d) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as 'the 1958 Act.'In a case where the premises shall be deemed to have been lawfully sub-let within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the 1958 Act and where the sub-tenant has been and is in occupation of the tenancy premises Clause (d) store said gives a right to the landlord to evict a tenant on the ground that the premises were let for use as residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filling of the application for the recovery of possession thereof. Concededly, the other ground of eviction enumerated under the aforesaid proviso will be available to the landlord against the tenant even in a case where the sub-tenant shall...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »