Delhi Court November 1974 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1974 Page 2 of about 20 results (0.015 seconds)Shri Kishan Vs. Mahabir Singh and Two ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi575
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Shri Krishan and Dr. Hans Raj Dawar against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, S. Rangarajan J., dated March 31, 1971, whereby the learned Judge dismissed Civil Writ Petition No. 1116 of 1970 filed by them. (2) The respondents in this Letters Patent Appeal, who were also the respondents in the Writ Petition, are (1) Shri Mahabir Singh, Financial Commissioner, Delhi Administration, Delhi, (2) Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and clearance) Act, 1955, and (3) Shri Shyam Kishore. (3) The appellants filed the aforesaid Writ Petition alleging that appellant 2 was the tenant in respect of the first and second floors of premises No. 3530, Darya Ganj, Delhi, that the tenancy was created in July or August 1939, that appellant I was a lawful sub-tenant of the said two floors since the year 1939, the year of the alleged inception of the tenancy, and that appellant 2 had not been living in ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Official Receiver Cum Offici ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-1974
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas419(Delhi); ILR1975Delhi394
Avadh Behari, J. (1) Ammonia Supplies Corporation Private Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. There were only two shareholders of this company. They were brothers Murari Lal and Gulzari Lal. They were the only directors of this company. They fell out. Murari Lal complained of oppression by his other brother and made an application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court. Guizari Lal on the other hand moved a petition for winding up. Both these applications were heard by S. B. Capoor, J. On 21st of December 1962 he accepted the petition of Guizari Lal and orde(2) Under Section 435 of the Companies Act Capoor. J., after making an order of winding up of the company, directed that all subsequent proceeding shall be had in the District Court of Delhi.(3) Shri P. P. R. Sawhney was the District Judge then. On 1st June 1964 he transferred the winding up case to the Court of Shri C. G. Suri then Additional District Judge.(4)...
Tag this Judgment!Gaura Devi Vs. Rameshwar Persklad and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi267; 1975RLR6
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This Second Appeal, by an unsuccesful sub-tenant, challenges the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appellant's appeal against the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller dismissing the objections filed by the appellant under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act' on the ground that the same were not maintainable. The Second Appeal has been filed in the following circumstances:(2) The property in dispute bearing Municipal Nos. 1179-80, situated in Pahar Ganj. New Delhi, was owned by Gauri Prasad, who is said to have died in the year 1968. The first and the second floors of the said property bearing Nos. 1179 and 1180 respectively were let out by the landlord to one Ram Kishan Aggarwal, respondent No. 2 in the present appeal. The appellant herein claims to have been a sub-tenant under the said tenant in respect of the entire second floor of the property and there is a dispute between the parties as to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Chand Sharma Vs. Saraswati Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi210; ILR1975Delhi345
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) This Regular First Appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, (herein to be called 'the Act') has been filed against the judgment dated 26th March, 1974, passed by a learned Single Judge passing final decree for redemption of the suit property in favor of the respondents.(2) Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under. One Bakshi Mohan Lal Sason, husban of Sarswati Devi, was the owner of property bearing No. 13, Keeling Road, New Delhi. Mohan Lal in his life time created a mortgage in respect of this property in favor of the appellant by deed dated May 31, 1966 in lieu of the sum of Rs. 70,000 that he borrowed from him. The deceased had earlier created two mortgages against the property in favor of two other persons, namely, Smt. Lajya Wati and Malwa Dcvi with which mortgages we arc not concerned in this appeal. Failing to get the property redeemed because of the stand of the appellant that the (Mohan Lal Sason) having not paid t...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ayashi Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR104
V.D. Misra, J.(1) This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent of a charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) The prosecution case in brief is that on April 11, 1967. Food Inspector H. R. Sood stopped the respondent's truck bearing No. Dlg 7777 carrying cans of milk for sale near S. S. Railway Crossing, G.T. Road, Shahdara. Whereas some cans had indication of milk written on them, others were without indication. The Food Inspector duly took a sample of milk from the can which was without indication from the respondent. When the Food Inspector offered the price, the respondent refused to accept it. Exhibit P.A. is the receipt which was prepared by the Food Inspector. The respondent wrote on this receipt that Milk is not for sale. Sale only after processing in our factory at Jawahar Nagar, Delhi.' Exhibit P. B. is the notice given to the respondent that milk without indication had been taken for analysis for...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Haji BashiruddIn Madhusudan Dayal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi215
Misra, J.1. This first appeal from order has been filed by the objector M/s. Jeevan Industries Pvt. Ltd. against the judgment and order of the learned single judge of this Court (S. N. Andley, J.), D/- 19-5-1969 by which the learned single judge has dismissed the objections of the appellant and made the award of the umpire dated 8th March, 1966, a rule of the Court. The award has been made by Shri P. N. Khanna who was then an advocate of this court, and later was elevated to the Bench of the High Court and has since retired, and the award directs the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 39,942/- to Haji Bashiruddin Madhusudan, the respondent.2. The material facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant runs a cold storage in which the respondent kept his potatoes amongst others. The agreement for storage is exhibit R-1, dated 10th March, 1955. This agreement contains terms and circumstances in which the liability for damages to the goods stored would arise and it also contain...
Tag this Judgment!The Chamber of Colours and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the Forward Markets Comm ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi96; ILR1975Delhi475
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The petitioners in this and the connected two writ petitions (Civil Writs 224-D of 1965 and 439-D of 1965) are associations registered under Chapter III-A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, (hereafter called 'the Act' in short) and the Rules framed under sections 28(1) and 28(2) thereof to carry on business relating to forward contracts. They have been affected by the following two acts, one of the Central Government (Respondent 2) and the other of the Forward Markets Commission (Respondent) . Firstly, under section 28(1) the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects of the Act. Under section 28(2)(cc) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may proviso for the manner in which applications for certificates of re.gistration may be made under section 14A and the levy of fees in respect of such applications. In exercis...
Tag this Judgment!J.C. Batra Etc. Vs. Radhey Shyam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR164
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17th December, 1973, passed by Shri K.S. Gupta, Commercial Sub Judge, whereby he stayed the suit of the petitioners on an application filed by the respondents under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that because of pendency of earlier suit filed by Radhey Shyam respondent against the petitioners pending in the Court of Shri B.B. Gupta Senior Sub-Judge, involving directly and substantially the same matters especially regarding tide of the premises in question, the present suit was liable to be stayed. (2) Respondent Radhey Shyam filed a suit against the petitioners for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the premises bearing No. 5. B Radhey Puri, Delhi by virtue of his having adverse possession for a period more than 12 years against the petitioners on allegation that he occupied the land measuring about 100 square yards in the year 1959 on which thereafter he constructed a bound...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kanta Vs. Hans Raj Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR190
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) [PETITIONER sued respondents for eviction on the grounds of non-payment of rent and sub- letting. Respondents 2 to 5 claimed that they were partners of the firm of no. 1. Petitioner gave her evidence and on conclusion stated that she closed her affirmative evidence. A.R.C. held that she had given all her evidence and was not entitled to rebuttal. She then made an application saying that onus of claim of respondents 2 to 5 that they are tenants as partners was on them and she should be allowed to rebut after they close their evidence. Application was rejected and she moved High Court u/Art. 227.] Para 9 onwards judgment is :- (2) The instant case, however, is where the Controller had illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in closing the evidence of the petitioner in rebuttal. 10 Section 37 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1968, lays down the procedure to be followed by the Controller. Sub-section (2) of the said section envisages that subject to ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Dev Mehta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi492
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) There is only one question raised in this. apreal : wheatherv the notiece retiring the appellant on attaining the age 55 years from the post of an Auditor. which he was then holding, was issued by the 'appropriate authority'.' A single Judge of this court has held that it was. Hence the appellant has appealed. (2) In October 1952 the appellant was taken into the Subordinate Accounts Service. He was promoted on 23rd August 1962. A controversy exists whether he was then made an Assistant Accounts Officer or an Assistant Audit Officer, bill it is of no consequence. It is agreed that he functioned as an Assistant Audit Officer. By an order dated 8th April 1968 the Comptroller and Auditor General of India redesignated this post as Audit Offiiecr, the word 'Assislam.' being dropped. In every other respect the post remained the same. At that time the appellant was working in the office of the Chief Auditor, Commercial Accounts, Northern Region. New Delhi Whilst. till so e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›