Delhi Court August 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.
Raj Nath Vs. Avadh Behari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT113
H.L. Anand, J. (1) The questions that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises are (a) whetter a judicial order made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the trial of a Civil Suit on the Original side can breach the fundamental right of a citizen, (b) whether, assuming that it does, such an order would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court either for the enforcement of the fundamental right or for any other purpose. The petition has been filed in the following circumstances : (2) In the course of proceedings of a civil suit pending before a learned Single Judge of this Court, the petitioner filed an affidavit that property bearing No. 8225-26, Ward No. Xvi, situated on plot No. 61/4, Ramjas Road, W.F.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi, belonged to respondent No. 3 before us. Respondent No. 2 applied under Sections 476,479A and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 215 of the Constitution with the allegations that the affidavit cont...
Ram Babu and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT376; 1974RLR678
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) The virus of Rule 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954 (hereinafter called the Rules) is tie subject matter of determination in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner No. 1 claims that he holds as a Bhumidhar land consisting of five fields bearingK.hasraNo. 1085 to 1088 and 2655/1114 in the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, Delhi, as Bhumidaar. Petitioner No. 2 is son of petitioner No. 1. In 1957 the land in dispute is alleged to have been given to respondent No. 3 an I and his father for a period oF 10 years. Subsequently the petitioner filed a suit, for possession under section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (herein after called the Act) against respondent No. 3 and the same decreed against respondent No. 3 on August 3, 1972. An appel filed by respondent No. 3 against the said decree were dismissed on March 1. 1973 by the Additional Collector. (2) After the decree had been passed against respondent No. 3 by the Assistant C...
Surnder Lal and ors. Vs. Balwant Hanmant Alurkar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi108
ORDER1. It is contended that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal could not have exercised the power contained in Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as the provision had not been made available to the said Tribunal either by any provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act or by any rule framed there under. 2. Mr. Dhanda has cited : AIR1958Pat427 . In none of the cases the High Court became concerned with Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (1) in that provision is:- 'In holding any inquiry under Section 110-B, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.' The comprehensive power given by the afore quoted provision is unfettered by the other provisions in the Act and the Rules framed there under. 3. Rules framed under a statute cannot override the provisions contained in it. The rule-making power itself is delegated by a provision in the statute. It is no doubt true that cer...
The Wearwell Cycle Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi586
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation and respondent No. 2 the Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, to carry out the obligation to transfer the property bearing No. 30, New Industrial Township, Faridabad, Haryana, in favor of the petitioner and a further direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to sell the aforesaid property in favor of respondent No. 3 State of Haryana, or any other person. (2) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 with its registered office in New Delhi and is carrying on the business of manufacturing bicycles in its factory at the above mentioned premises in Faridabad. (3) On 28th April, 1954, the Union of India issued a press Note stating that it was anxious to encourage the establishment of New Industry at Faridabad, and that it has been decided to give facilitie...
Des Raj Chopra and ors. Vs. Pooran Mal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi109; 11(1975)DLT63
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 16th of July, 1974 by which he refused permission to the petitioners to cross examine witness by respondent No. 3 the New Super Consumer Co-operative Stores (hereinafter called the Store).(2) Respondent No. 1 is the landlord of premises in dispute. He has filed an eviction application on the allegation that the premises were originally let to Ram Swarup respondent No. 2 who has sublet and parted with possession to one Des Raj (who was predecessor in interest of the petitioners being the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and the father of the petitioner No. 2 to 4. It was also alleged that premises were subsequently collusively sub-let to Respondent No. 3 the stores and that the store is running its business there. As no consent has been given in writing by the landlord, the Stores as well as other persons are liable to be evicted.(3) In...
Lakshmi Chand Vs. Iqbal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR67
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) Parties jointly bought two houes. One was in front and the other on the back. Entrance to the back was from the front house. For partition they wrote a deed marked 'A'. A passage for entry to back house was reserved to owner of back house, plaintiff's father. Defendant owned front house who built upper floor and made some construction on partition wall & opened a door & windows towards passage. Plaintiffs claiming that passage was their exclusive property and defendant had no right to raise height of partition wall and open door and windows sued him for injunction. Trial Court framed issues, whether plaintiffs were owners of partition wall, whether they exclusively owned passage and whether they were etitled to injunction. Partition deed 'A' was held inadmissible being unnegistererd. Trial Court partly decreed suit while it was decreed in full in 1st appeal. Defendant filed 2nd appeal. After narrating above facts, para 7 onwards judgment is ;- (2) The appellants...
Asuda Singh Vs. K.B. Pahlaj Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT394; ILR1975Delhi115; 1974RLR673
S.N. Shankar, J.(1) Asuda Singh, defendant No. 3 in the suit, (since deceased, and now represented by his legal representatives) filed this regular first appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial' court rejecting the plaint of an interpleader suit filed by Union of India and in the alternative holding that defandant No. 1, R. B. Pahlaj Singh alone was entitled to receive the amount mentioned in the plaint and held by Union of India.(2) It appears that a sum of Rs. 74,878/5/9 was received by transfer by Union of India from the Government of Pakistan on partition of the sub-continent, being the amount due on account of certain works executed in pursuance of certain contracts entered into by the Government of undivided India. The appellant herein registered a claim for l/3rd of this amount with the Controller General of defense Accounts with the plea that this amount was payable to the firm. M/s. R. B. Pahlaj Singh Lulla (hereinafter called 'the firm') of which the appel...
Sucharita Kalsie Vs. Rajinder Kishore Kalsie
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT92; 1975RLR52
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This is a wife's appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 18th of September, 1972.(2) On 2nd April, 1971, the wife made a petition for a decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter refferred to as the Act. The parties were married on 16th April, 1970. They lived together for four months but the marriage could not be consummated as the husband was impotent. The wife in her petition stated that the husband was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings. She further stated that the husband in the presence of her mother and brother-in-law admitted that he was impotent and was unable to cohabit with the petitioner as he was 'sexually very weak.'(3) In answer to the petition the husband filed his written statement. His defense was that he was not 'universally impotent.' But he is impotent quad hanc. It was admitted that the marriage was unconsummated. The lea...
Blue Star Limited Vs. the Labour Court and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi69; 1975LabIC1171
H.L. Anand, J.(1) The only question that this Letters Patent Appeal raises is as to whether areference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter celled 'the Act' to the Labour Court constituted for the Union Territory of Delhi and then 'presided over by Shri Desh Deepak was invalid merely because the appointment of Shri Desh Deepak to the said Labour Court in the absence on leave of Shri R. K. Baweja, who was presiding over it, was eventually struck down by this Court on the ground that there was no 'vacancy' in which Shri Desh Deepak could be appointed.(2) The facts are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. There are at present and were, during the material period, ' four Labour Courts for the Union Territory of Delhi constituted under Section 7(1) of the Act, one of which was presided over by Shri R. K. Baweja. On the absence of Shri Baweja on leave from November 26, 1968 to January 1, 1969, the Lt. Governor appointed Shri Desh Deepak as the Presiding Off...
Union of India Vs. Ganpat Rai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1974
Reported in: 1975RLR129
H.L. Anand, J. (1) Respondent entered into an agreement with Railway on 15-12-50 for doing certain work. It was extended up to 3-3-52. In March, 1952, respondent gave bill for Rs. 4,000.00 & asked refund of Rs. 3,000.00 (security). To repeated reminders, he was told that matter was under consideration. On 21-1-64, his claim was repudiated. After notice u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code, he filed suit for Rs. 7,000.00. Para 2 onwards judgment is :- (2) The suit was resisted on the merits as also on the ground that it was barred by time. By its judgment and decree, the trial Court returned findings on all the issues on merits in favor of the respondent but the plea with regard to limitation raised by the appellants prevailed with the learned trial Court with the result that the respondent's suit was dismissed. In the course of its judgment, the trial Court held that the limitation for the suit would be regulated by Article 120 of the Limitation Act of 1963 and came to the conclusion that in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »