Delhi Court January 1974 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.
Mohd. Yusuf and ors. Vs. RafiquddIn Siddiqui
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi825
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) This second appeal was referred to a larger Bench by Pritam Singh Safeer, J. In the referring order the learned Judge also posed the following question, which he considered to be of general importance and likely to arise in many cases:- 'WHETHERa trial court has the jurisdiction to proceed against a minor defendant/defendants without compliance with Order 32, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code The non-compliance will to what extent injure the decree that may be passed against the minor defendant/defendants and in case it is indivisible qua the other co-defendants ?'.(2) Rafiquiddin Siddiqui is owner of house No. 3403, situate at Jangli Kuan, Kucha Pandit, Delhi-6. The first floor of the said house (which has hereinafter been referred to as 'the premises') was let out by the owner to Naziruddin, son of Lal Mohd. at a rent of Rs. 8.50 per month. On taking the premises on rent Naziruddin and his wife, Mst. Bashiran, started living in it. Mst. Bashiran, however, died is...
Raman Hosiery Factory, Delhi and ors. Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi207; [1975]45CompCas374(Delhi)
1. The plaintiffs are the three partners and their partnership firm who claim that they are carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of nylon hosiery goods in Delhi. Defendants 1 to 4 are manufacturers of various types of nylon filament yarn, including nylon-6 multi-filament yarn and supply about 90 Per cent. of the total nylon Yarn Produced in India. Defendants 1 to 4 also manufacture nylon crimped/dyed yarn. Defendant 5 is an Association of synthetic fibre industry, Bombay of which defendants 1 to 4 are members. Defendants 6 to 23 are various associations/Co-operative Societies, who represent some of the actual users of the said nylon-6 multi-filament yarn and also nylon crimped/dyed yarn. Defendant 24 is the Chairman of the Central Nylon Committee: defendant 25 is the Member Secretary of the Central Nylon Committee and defendant 26 is the Chairman of the Silk and Ravon Textile Export Promotion Council and is also a member of the said Central Nylon Committee.2. Defendants 1 t...
Ashola Fatehpur Beri Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi4
ORDER1. The background of law and facts leading to the filing of this writ petition may be first stated so that the questions arising for decision may be properly appreciated. Under Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, all lands other than lands comprised in any holding or grove vest in the Gaon Sabha under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. However, prospecting or mining operations have to be under a license or a lease in respect of the minerals. Under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957, building stones, gravel and sand are 'minor minerals'. According to the Delhi Minor Minerals Rules, 1969, made under the said Act, an application for grant of a permit to quarry minerals has to be made to the Collector who may grant or refuse the permit for the same under Rule 7. Certain waste land in village Ashola vests in the Gaon Sabha Ashola, which is managed by the Gaon Panchayat, Ashola, respondent No. 7. Minor m...
Gayco Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Excise Commissioner, Delhi State and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi585
S.N. Andley, C.J.(1) This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order dated August 4, 1972 of a learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing certain orders of the Excise authorities as a result whereof the appellants were refused renewal of their L-1 license for the whole-sale and retail vend to the trade of foreign liquor. In January, 1967 the appellants were granted the aforesaid license under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', as in force in Delhi. On or about June 6, 1970, the godowns of the appellants and the houses of some of its officers were raided and searched by the Police and the Excise authorities. It is alleged that four wooden boxes containing drums which contained about 180 1bs. of rectified spirit were recovered and it was also found that the liquor in stock was short by 1-1/2 bottles than what it should have been according to the stock register. A case was registered on June 7, 1970 wi...
Union of India Vs. Delton Cable Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi142
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) At varies times, the union of India entered into three contracts with the Delton Catle Company for the purchase of certain goods to be manufactured by the company. Each of the contracts contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose under all three of them and were refered to aroitration. The refereness were made to one and the same arbitraror. In the course of the arbitration proceedings the parties arrived at an amicabSc settlement in respect of all the dispute. It is conceded that the result of that settlement was in favor the Union of India. One term of the settlement was that : THEstamp duly of the award will be borne by the Government on 17 July 1973 the arbitrator made a compose and disposing of all the disputes referred to him in accordance with the settlement between the parties. At the end of the award he ai: 'THEstamp duty charges payable in respect of this award shall be borne by the Union of India'(2) Soon afterwards, the present application was move...
Ram Chander Sagar Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi284
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The main question for consideration is whether even a temporary police officer in Delhi is governed exclusively and that too by each and everyone of the Punjab Police Rules framed under the Police Act, 1861 (hereafter called 'PPR' in short) as applied to Delhi or whether his services can be terminated under rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 (hereafter called 'CCS(TS) Rules' as being applicable to him along with only some but not all the Punjab Police Rules. The question arises as follows :- (2) Petitioner Ram Chander was first directly appointed as Head Constable in the Delhi Police Force on July 16, 1959 as a result of competitive examination. At the next competitive examination he secured a higher place and was appointed as a temporary Assistant Sub Inspector along with others on April 20, 1960 with effect from March 31, 1960. Their letter of appointment signed by the Superintendent of Police who is their appointing authority ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›