Delhi Court November 1974 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1974 Page 1 of about 20 results (0.022 seconds)Globe Motors Ltd. Vs. Globe United Engineering and Foundry Co. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas429(Delhi); ILR1975Delhi305
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The question for decision involving construction of sections 9, 36, 85, 100, 102, 205, 211 (read with Schedule VI), 217 and 511 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is whether the holders of preference shares carrying a right to a fixed cumulative dividend payable when the company is going concern only out of profits earned and when dividend is recommended to be paid by the directors in a general meeting are entitled during the winding up of the company to the arrears of the fixed cumulative dividend in view of Article 7 of the Articles of Association out of the assets of the company which did not make any profits at any time at all.(2) The appellant company Messrs. Globe Motors Limited arc the equity shareholders of Respondent No. 1 Messrs. Globe United Engineering & foundry Company Limited. Respondents 2 to 7 are the holders of the company's (Respondent 1) preference shares carrying a fixed cumulative dividend as per Article 7(i) of the Art...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Khandelwal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi184; ILR1975Delhi501
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) These are two Civil Writ Petitions. Civil Writ Petition No. 822 of 1974 has been filed by Shri Bri) Khandelwal praying that this Court may . '(I)issue a writ of prohibition and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction preventing the respondent from ceding the island of Kachchativu to Sri Lanka without making the necessary amendment to the Constitution; and (II)issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the respondent to perform the duty imposed on it under the Constitution of India'.(2) The other Civil Writ Petition No. 935 of 1974 has been filed by Shri Shyama Charan Gupta praying as follow? : 'THISHon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent (Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs) from handing over the possession of Kachchativu to Sri Lanka. And or in case if it is found that the transfer has been completed a writ of mandamus ...
Tag this Judgment!Kulwant Kaur Vs. Hazari Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi244; 1975RLR24
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) This revision is against an order of Shri R. K. SynghaL Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi. By his order dated February 16, 1967, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) During the execution of a money decree obtained by Shri Hazari Lal for his own benefit and the benefit of certain other persons, a bus (No. RJ.A. 643) was attached and its possession was given on Superdari basis to Shri Lal Singh. Later on Shri Lal Singh was required to produce that bus and on his failure to do so another bus (No. DLP-3020), which was alleged to belong to the Superdar, was attached with a view to its being sold. In the meantime Shri Lal Singh died and his widow, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, en September 27, 1966, made obiections to the attachment of bus No. DLP-3020. According to her bus No. DLP-3020 belonged to her and was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree that had been obtained by Shri Hazari Lal...
Tag this Judgment!Avtar Singh Alias Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi525
V.D. Mishra, J.(1) Whether an Additional District Magistrate of Delhi, who has been invested with all the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and under any other law for the time being in force under Section 10(2) of the Code, can pass orders of externment under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (No. Xxii of 1951), as extended to Delhi? is the question which falls for decision in the two criminal writs Nos. 20 and 23 of 1974. (2) The relevant facts of the two petitions may now be noted. Avtar Singh alias Tari is the petitioner in Criminal Writ No. 20 of 1974. He was served with a notice dated June 21, 1974 (Annexure -1) issued by Shri Navin Chawla, Additional District Magistrate (South), Delhi, calling upon him to show cause why proceedings under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as extended to Delhi, should not be taken against him and he be not ex- tcrned from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a per...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation Vs. Sri Chand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1975RLR99
V.D. Misra, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of Shri B.L. Anand. judicial Magistrate, acquitting the respondent of the offence under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, of selling adulterated Haldi powder. (2) The respondent is the proprietor of Ashok Masala Company. On December 29, 1970, Shri S.L. Mehra, Food Inspector, purchased 450 grams of Haldi powder packed in sealed plastic packets for analysis from the respondent. It was divided into three parts and put in three dry and clean bottles which were duly sealed. One of the sealed bottles was handed over to the respondent and one was sent to the Public Analyst. On analysis the Haldi- was found to be adulterated due to the presence of sodium chloride and artificial coal-tar dye. During the trial the sample was sent to the Director of Food Laboratory, Calcutta, at the request of the respondent. The result of analysis was :... ...... Lead : 1.8 p p.m. (on dry base). Salt (sodium chloride) : 2.9%. The learned magi...
Tag this Judgment!Gian Devi Vs. Amar Nath Aggarwal Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi811
Dalip K. Kapur, J.(1) The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to several reported cases, to show that interim maintenance can be ordered during the pendency of a suit for maintenance. Those authorities for the purposes of reference, are reported as : AIR1955Mad571 Muniammal v. P.M. Ranganatha Nayagar and another : AIR1968Cal305 , Smt. Gouri Gupta Chandhury v. Tarani Gupta Chaudhury, : AIR1968Cal405 , Nemal Chand Jain v. Smt. Lila Jain and : AIR1968Cal567 , Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v. Smt. Gouri Gupta Chowdhury. The present application has been moved during the pendency of a pauper application and the learned counsel for the respondent urges that the authorities show that interim maintenance can be ordered in a suit but not during the pendency of a pauper application. The learned counsel for the respondent has offered to pay interim maintenance @Rs. 200.00 per month starting from the date of institution of the suit in this Court. This offer is without prejudice to the eventual ...
Tag this Judgment!Y.L. Taneja Etc. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi457
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) The petitioners challenge the levy of property tax by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (herein called 'the Corporation') under section 114(1)(d) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, (herein called 'the Act') on the basis of the graduated scale prescribed under the second proviso to the said section. (2) Since common questions of law are involved it would be expedient to deal with these petitions together by a single judgment. It may be noted here that petitioners in Civil References No. 3 to 5 in their grounds of attack did not raise the legal contentions urged by the other petitioners. They were, however, permitted by us to adopt the said contentions as canvassed by the other petitioners in their petitions. (3) The Corporation was constituted under the Act for carrying out the fanctions enjoined on it by the Act. To provide finances to the Corporation to meet its obligations, section 113 empowers the Corporation to levy taxes enumerated therein. We are co...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Shankar Kapoor Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1376; ILR1975Delhi492b
M.R. Ansari, J. (1) The petitioner Daya Shankar Kapoor has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus or any other suitable order or direction for his release from detention by virtue of an order dated 24th September,1974 issued by the District Magistrate, Delhi, under section 3(l)(c)read with section 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').(2) The President of India in exercise of powers under Article 123(1) of the Constitution promolgated the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (No. 2 of 1974) to amend the Act. By the said ordinance the following clause was added to section 2 of the Act :- '(CC)'smuggling' has the same meaning as in clause (39) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.'THEfollowing clause was also added to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act :-'(...
Tag this Judgment!P.D. Puri Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1975RLR12
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition has arisen out of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Delhi Administration, under section 27(a) read with section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereafter called 'the Act'). (2) The Drugs Inspector stated in the complaint that he had recovered items 1 to 23 mentioned in the recovery memo which were drugs within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Act and that had been done on the 23rd of February, 1972. The Drugs were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Certain bills and cash-memos were also recovered which disclosed the sources from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. A recovery memo was prepared in respect thereof. The Drugs Inspector made inquiries from the firms from which the drugs bad been purchased by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 the complaint alleged :- 'THATthe accused had no license to sell, stock and exhibit for sale and distribute drugs at his premises mentioned above and that he is not a Re...
Tag this Judgment!P.D. Puri Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1075
ORDERP.S. Safeer, J.1. This petition has arisen out of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector. Delhi Administration, under Section 27(a) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940(hereafter called 'the Act').2. The Drugs Inspector stated in the complaint that he had recovered Items 1 to 23 mentioned in the recovery memo which were drugs within the mean-ins of Section 3(b) of the Act and that had been on the 23rd of February. 1972. The Drugs were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Certain bills and cash-memos were also recovered which disclosed the sources from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. A recovery memo was prepared in respect thereof. The Drugs Inspector made inquiries from the firms from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 the complaint alleged:That the accused had no license to sell, stock and exhibit for sale and distribute drugs at his premises mentioned above and that he is not a Register...
Tag this Judgment!