Delhi Court July 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.
Ram Kishore and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi513
S.N. Andley, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ No. 1118 of 1970 and F.A.O. No. 94 of 1970. The writ petition and the appeal came to be filed in the circumstances stated hereinafter. (2) Certain lands belonging to deceased Raghbar Dayal, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the appellants, situate in village See lum Pur, were notified for acquisition under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lessee of these lands was one Raj Kishan Jain. This notification was follower by section 6 and section 9 notifications and in or about 1962, a certain amount of market value was offered by the Collector to Raghbar Dayal as also to Raj Kishan Jain, Raghbar Dayal .applied under section 18 of the said Act on April 18, 1963 for a reference and somewhere nearabout that time Raj Kishan Jain also applied independently for a similar reference for enhancement of compensation offered by the Collector. The Collector made the references to the District Judge and both were tra...
Bhagwanti Malhotra Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1973
Reported in: 1973RLR661
R.N. Aggarwal (1) Smt Bhagwanti Malhotra was tried in the court of Shri G.S. Mann, Judicial Magistrate, Delhi, on a charge under section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act. The Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced her to a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Again the order of the Magistrate, the accused want in revision to the Sessions Judge. The revision was heard by Sh.K.S.Sidhu, Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed the revision petition. The(2) The Delhi Development Act was enacted in the year 1957 and it extended to the whole of the Union Territory, Section 7 case a duty on the Authority to carry out a civic survey and prepare a Master Plan for Delhi. Sub-section (2) of section 7 provided that the Master Plan shall define the various Zones which Delhi may be divided into for the purposes of development and indicate the manner in which the land in each Zone is proposed to ...
Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. K. Suba Rao and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi1
S.N. Andley, C.J. (1) This information which has erroneuously been numbered by the office of this Court as Criminal Original No. 51 of 1973 has been furnished by Anil Kumar Gupta of New Delhi as he considered it his duty to draw the attention of this Court to the act of respondent No. 1 (Mr. K. Subba Rao, Ex-Chief Justice of India, Bangalore) and respondent No. 2 (Mr. Kuldip Nayar, The Editor, The Statesman, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi) that respondent No. 1 wrote and got published an article and respondent No. 2 published the aforesaid article in the issue of the Statesman dated May 14, 1973 styled 'The Supersession of Judges and that the aforesaid acts of the respondents amount to contempt of Court and praying that this Court should exercise its powers under Article 215 of the Constitution and/ or Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to issue notices to the respondents and upon hearing them to hold them guilty of gross contempt of this Court and to punish them. Concededly the informant. Anil ...
Calcutta and anr. Vs. Ajit Kumar Bhatacharjee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi714
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by (1) The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta, and (2) The Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi, against the judgment of Jagjit Singh, J. dated February 3, 1971, whereby the learned Judge allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 699-D of 1963, quashed an order of the General Manager, dated July 25, 1957, and an order of the Railway Board, dated December 24, 1962, and directed the General Manager and the Secretary, Railway Board, respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition (appellants herein), to reinstate the respondent herein, Ajit Kumar Bhattacharjee, in case he had not already attained the age of superannuation. (2) The respondent herein, Ajit Kumar Bhattacharjee, filed the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition in the following circumstances. He started his service on November 28, 1942, as a temporary Assistant Station Master in the then Bengal Nagpur Railway Company. He was confirmed on that post with effect from December ...
Union of India Vs. Gopal Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi19; 1974RLR488
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) The only question involved in this appeal is about the effect of sections 4(1) and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on the procedure for the dismissal of a Government servant convicted of a criminal offence, but put on probation under the said Probation of Offenders Act. In other words, does the removal of disqualification attaching to a conviction, has the effect of still requiring an inquiry as envisaged by clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, to be held before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of the Government servant concerned (2) The respondent who was a Government servant, was convicted under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 40.00. The High Court, in appeal, affirmed the order of conviction, but set aside the sentence. He was ordered to be released on his executing a bond in the amount of Rs. 1000.00 with one surety in the like amount, to appear and rece...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›