Delhi Court September 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.
Murari Lal Vs. Abdul Ghaffar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi45; 1974RLR39
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) In this second appeal the only question which arises for decision is as to whether under the provisions of section 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') MurariLal appellant can be deemed to have become a tenant holding directly under the landlords in respect of the premises in his occupation on the same term and conditions on which Ranjit Singh tenant would have held from the landlords, if the tenancy had continued. (2) The premises to which this case relates is a godown which is part of a building having Municipal No. 11/953, situate in Kucha Qabil Attar, Chandni Chowk, Ward No. 11, Delhi. It is not disputed that the godown belonged to Haji Abdul Jabbar and was let out by him on June 19. 1954 to Ranjit Singh at a rent of Rs. 85.00 per month. In July 1956 Ranjit Singh sub-let the godown to Murari Lal without the consent of the landlord. (3) In April 1963 Haji Abdul Jabbar filed an application, under clause (a) of the proviso t...
Basheshar Nath and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: 1978RLR65
V.D. Misra, J. (1) (PLAINTIFF on 4.1.63 contracted with defendant to supply 19,600 tents @ Rs. 22.625 Plaintiff made part supplies and then Sought extention of time for the rest. Deft. began recovering 2% P.M. from plaintiff's bills and rate was also agreed to reduction @Rs. 211.50. When there was further delay, contract was cancelled. He was still to supply 9450 tents. Deft. then bought 1163 tents @ Rs. 217 under the risk purchase clause. However it claimed Rs. 72,675.00 from plaintiff. Matter was referred to Arbitrator who gave an award for Rs. 36,000.00 Plaintiff Challenged this. One of the objections was that Deft's actual loss was much less than the sum awarded and that the award was based on no evidence on record. The issues were whether there was error of law apparent on the face and whether it was based on no evidence.) Judgment para 10 onwards is:- (2) Clause 11 (3) of the Conditions of Contract giving the right to the Union of India to recover the losses suffered by them on a...
Sarup Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi215
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 17th October, 1967 in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1966 by which he convicted SarupChand for an offence under section 494 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 44 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 11/2 years and acquitted both Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri of the offences under sections 420 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and acquitted Raj Kumari Suri of the offence under section 494 read with section 34 Ipc with which they had been charged. Sarup Chand has filed an appeal against his conviction and the sentence passed against him and Janak Rani on the basis of whose complaint Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri had been prosecuted has filed the other appeal against their acquittal after having obtained special leave of this Court. Both these appeals shall be disp...
Ham Dal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi823
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) This appeal under caluse 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge quashing the order dated January 15, 1964 passed by the Central Government in suo moto revision under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereafter called 'the Act'. (2) House No. 91/105 situated in Katra Umar Khan, Taj Ganj, Agra (U.P.), which was an acquired evacuee property, was allotted to one Shrimati Vidya Wanti, daughter of the appellant. The allottee was not interested in the purchase of the house and it was put to auction on August 27, 1959. The appellant lived in the house along with her daughter. At the auction she gave the highest bid for Rs. 2425.00. As she herself was also a displaced person having verified claim, instead of making the deposit of 10 per cent of the bid amount in cash as required by sub-rule (8) of rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, hereaf...
Hakumat Rai Vs. Jagdish Chander Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: ILR1973Delhi795; 1974RLR395
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The exact question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether if at the time of the letting a sum of money is paid to the landlord by the tenant to serve as security for rent, it would amount to consideration in addition to the rent within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. (2) The respondent Jagdish Chander Ahuja, is a tenant in half portion of the ground floor of House No. 2460 comprising of two rooms, a store, a kitchen, latrine, with a common bathroom court-yard and lawn. The said house belonged to Smt. Amrit Rani wife of Hakumat Rai, appellant. The respondent filed an application under section 13 of the Act for directing refund of Rs. 3,300. The direction was sought against (1) aforesaid Smt. Amrit Rani, (2) Hakumat Rai, appellant and (3) R. S. Bhalla, respondent No. 2 who had been described as respondents. The case made out for the aforesaid direction...
Hakumat Rai Nigam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi271
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) The petitioner is being tried by shri Jagdish Chander, Special Judge, Delhi, for an offence under section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under section 5(2) of the said Act, on the allegation that he on 3rd May, 1971, while employed as Superintendent in National Small Industries Corporation Limited, Okhla, New Delhi, as a public servant, by corrupt or by illegal means or otherwise abusing his position as a public servant obtained Rs. 200.00 from Shri Ranbir Singh son of Amir Chand, as illegal gratification. He is also being tried for an offence punishable under section 161 Indian Penal Code . on the ground that he on the 3rd May, 1971, accepted the sum of Rs. 200.00 from Ranbir Singh as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing him favor in getting his machine case passed in the meeting to enable him to purchase gear shaper machine on hire purchase syst(2) The Special Judge framed the above charges aga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›