Delhi Court March 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.
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi311b
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 34,326.00 and the principal question that it raises is as to whether the derailment of a railway train could constitute in law an act of God or of the enemy agent so as to absolve the Railway of liability to compensate the plaintiff for the consequential loss merely by virtue of the fact that the cause of the accident was not known and remained inexplicable. The suit has been filed in the following circumstances.(2) According to the allegation in the plaint, the D.C.M. Chemical Works, a unit of the plaintiff, a public company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, had purchased 1044 tins loose tank load of groundgnut oil unrefined from M/s. Dinesh Kumar and Company through the commission agents M/s. Shah Jasraj Moti Chand and Sons, the contents of the said load weighting 16704 Kgs. had been consigned by the said seller to self under Invoice No. 99, Railway Receipt No. 34924 of July 14, 1965 ex-Dhoraji Factory Siding to Delh...
Prithi Vs. State Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR479
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This petition has been filed u/s, 435 & 561A of the Criminal Procdure Code, hereafter called 'the Code'. At the very outset an objection has been raised by Shri Anoop Singh on behalf of respondent No. 2 to the maintainability of the petition. It is urged that the petition is directed against the order made by Shri M.K. Chawla Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 18.4.73 and that order having been made on a petition preferred u/s 435 of code the jurisdiction provided by it stood exhausted. The instant petition could not have been preferred under section 435. It is then emphasised that in the presence of section 439 which provides for invoking the revisionary jurisdiction and settlessits scope section 561A of the Code cannot be resorted to. Continuing the objection it is urged that even if the petition is treated as having been preferred under section 439 of the Code it is barred by time. It is pointed out that when the petition came up for admission on the 20t...
Madhusudan Ltd. Vs. South Asia Ind. P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1974
Reported in: 1974RLR326
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition is directed against the order made by Shri O.P. Dwivedi, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi on the 8th of February, 1973 by which the allowed respondent No. 1's application dated the 10th of November, 1972 filed under order 6 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. That Provision, is : (-) (2) The provision falls in two parts. The first part gives the Court the power to allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. If the exercise of jurisdiction is confined to that part the Court has to discuss the proposed amendments and has to support its conclusions by determining what would be just to permit the amendment or the amendments which may have been sought to be introduced. (3) The second part in the aforequoted provision is imperative in nature. The Court is to allow all such amendments which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In its composition...
Rabinder Nath Maira and anr. Vs. Steelsons Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1974
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas538(Delhi); 10(1974)DLT235
D.K Kapar, J.(1) This is an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with Order 22, Rules 2 and 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure instituted by the legal heirs of Shri R. N. Maira in respect of a Company Petition No. 42 of 1973, which has been instituted in this Court by Shri R. N. Maira and another against M/s.Steelsons(P.) Limited and others. The said Company Petition was before this Court when Shri R. N. Maira, the first petitioner died and the second petitioner therein, Shri Jitender Nath Maira, decided that he would not .prosecute the petition any further. On 17th September, 1973, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. G. R. Chopra, counsel for the respoadent stated that the first petitioner had died and the petition was incomplete and, thereforee, should be consigned to the reord room. I ordered accordingly. Later on, on the same date Mr. Satish Chandra stated that the petition could go on even in the absence of the legal representatives of the first p...
Lakshmi Oil Co. Vs. Aggarwal Oil Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT390; 1974RLR682
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) The present petition is directed against the order dated the 10th April, 1973, passed by the learned trial court declining stay of execution of an ex-parte money decree during pendency of an application under Order Rule 13 read with section 478(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which application was filed on the ground that the defendants were never served in the suit wherein the ex-parte decree was passed. (2) The suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 3894.43 P. against the petitioners and it is alleged by the petitioners that summons were directed to be issued to the defencants for 10th March, 1971. In the meanwhile on 2nd of February, 19/1, an application was filed for amendment of the plaint to give description of defendant No. 1 as a registered firm and of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 as partners of defendant No. 1. On 10th March, 1971, it is further alleged that without service of the said application on the defendants, the amendment was allowed and none of ...
Khairati Lal Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi51; 1974RLR403
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against an order of Shri R. P. Gupta, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated November 6, 1971, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge upheld a claim of privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act in respect of two documents. (2) The petitioner herein, Khairati Lal, filed a suit, No. 231 of 1968, against the Delhi Development Authority, for a perpetual injunction restraining the latter from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff in respect of a land measuring about 161 square yards and situate in khasra No. 202/15, Motia Khan, Delhi, and a shop, bearing No. 47, which was constructed on the said land, and from demolishing the said shop. (3) In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner-plaintiff sought for the production of two documents, viz. '(i) File No. W.II-73- (10)/54 dated 22nd February, 1952, from the Ministry of Works Production and Supply - to the Chief Commissioner,...
Vidya Devi Vs. Mani Ram Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT311; 1974RLR346
Avadh Behari, J. (1) The plaintiff Vidya Devi has instituted two suits in this court for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. (2) In or about 1960 Basheshar Nath the husband of the plaintiff started partnership business for printing and block making with his partners. These were two partnerships. One was called Delhi Printers. The other was called Process Syndicate. Process Syndicate is engaged in making blocks. The Delhi Printers are engaged in printing. During his life time in Delhi printers his Partners were Mani Ram and Raj Narain. In Process Syndicate he had three partners, viz, Mani Ram, Raj Narain and N.C. Dutta. Everything went well during the life time of Bashesbar Nath On March 21,1975 Bashesher Nath died. The plaintiff is his widow. On March 23, 1973 two deeds of partnership were executed one in respect of Delhi Printers and the other in respect of Process Syndicate. The terms of both the documents are substantially the same. Under the new deeds Vidya Devi a...
Rattan Lal and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer Etc. Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi621; [1975]98ITR681(Delhi)
P.N. Khanna, J. (1) The question that has been raised in this petition is whether the Income-tax officer can reject the Explanationn of an assessed in respect of any sums found credited in his books, on the ground that the nature and source of the said sum in the hands of the depositors in whose names the credit stands, has not been satisfactorily explained merely by the said depositor, having declared it as his income in pursuance to the voluntary disclosure scheme set out in Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965 (Act'No. Xv of 1965).(2) The petition has been filed by three petitioners. Messrs Jain Brothers, a partnership firm, is petitioner No. 3 and consists of two partners, Rattan Lal, petitioner No. 1, and Khazanchi Lal, petitioner N'o- 2. The firm is being assessed in the status of a registered firm under section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, herein called 'the 1961 Act', while petitioners Nos. I and 2 are being assessed in the status of individuals. The Income-tax officer has been imp ...
Raj Kumar and anr. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1974
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi81
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) These two Civil Petitions, No 473-D of 1963 and 15-D of 1966, can be disposed of by a common judgment as the main points for determination are the same in both the cases, though the petitioners and the lands involved are different. (2) In Civil Writ Petition No. 473-D of 1963, the petitioners are Raj Kumar and Om Prakash. The respondents are (1) the Union of India; (2) the Chief Commissioner, Delhi; (3) the Delhi Administration ; and (4) the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioners are stated to be owners .in equal shares of a plot of land measuring about 1157 square yards and bearing khasra Nos. 1274/ 191/2/1 and 201, situate in village Kilkori within the Union Territory of Delhi, having purchased the same under a registered deed of sale, dated February 16, 1959. On November 13, 1959, the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, issued a Notification No. F. 15(iii)/ 59-LSG under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stating that the land, measuring 34070 ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›