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.
Kaviraj Ganpat Lal Sindhwani and ors. Vs. Om Parkash and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT41; 1974RLR661
H.L. Anand, J. (1) By this petition under Section 115 of the Cods of Civil Procedure the defendant in a suit out of which it has arisen assaits the order of the trial Court by which the trial Court over ruled the objection of the petitioner to any opportunity being given to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein to produce evidence on issues 2 and 3 of which the onus was on the petitioner.(2) It is the admitted case of the parties that onus of issues 2 and 3 was on the petitioner/defendant but it appears that after producing his evidence, the palintiff/respondent No. 1, made an unqualified statement closing his evidence without reserving his right to give evidence in rebuttal on issues 2 and 3. However, in the application made by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 on March 22, 1969. for summonig witnesses, the plaintiff had recorded that the plaintiff reserved his right of rebuttal, if any. and when the plaintiff sought to produce the evidence in rebuttal on the aforesaid issues, an objecti...
Amarendra Chaudhary Vs. Nalini Chaudhary
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT105; 1975RLR63
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This First Appeal by the husband under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter called 'the Act' is directed against the judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant/husband's petition under Section 12 of the Act for annulment of the marriage solomnised between the parties on the ground that the respondent/wife was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the petition. The appeal has been filed in the following circumstances. (2) The appellant and the respondent were married on Jaunary 31,1971 according to Hindu rites, the respondent/wife was about 16 years of age at the time of marriage. After the marrige. the parties lived as husband and wife for a total period of little over three months at defferent places, and since, July, 1971 when she left the appellant's home with her father, the respondent has been living with her parents. There is controversy between the parties as to whether ...
Peter Samuel Wallace Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi112; 11(1975)DLT155
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) After the Election Commissioner had issued the notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of. the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (hereafter called the Act) on July 16, 1974 giving a public notice under section 5 of the Act as amended by Act 5 of 1974 inviting nominations of candidates for the election of the President and specifying the last date for filing the nominations to be July 30, 1974 and the date of election to be August 17, 1974, the present writ petition was filed in this Court on July 29, 1974, one day before the expiry of the period fixed for filing the nominations. The petitioner Shri Peter Samuel Wallace stated that he had wanted to contest the Presidential election and was , prospective candidate. He did not make any pleading as to why he did not file a nomination of his candidature within time. He referred, however, to sections 5B and 5C of the Act as amended in 1974 whereby it was necessary that the presentation of th...
Sunanda Rani Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT383; [1975]99ITR391(Delhi)
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The facts leading to this petition, which has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a partner of the firm known as M/s. Auto & Metal Engnieers having its factory on industrial plot No. 4 and parts of plots No. 3 and 5, Nh 5, Faridabad and its office on a part of plot No.P/37-C, Faridabad. The firm is also registered under the Partnership Act. The two partners, namely, Smt. Sunanda Rani Jain and Smt. Karuna Jain are the wives of V. K.. Jain and S. K. Jain, respectively. On 24th April, 1971 three, raiding parties consisting of Income Tax authorities conducted raid on the residential- cum-ofiice premises of the petitioner, the factory premises of M;'s. Auto and Metal Engineers and the residential premises of Mr. and Mrs. S. K. Jain at Faridabad. In connection with the said raids three other Writ Petitions have been filed and heard along with this petition. (2) On 28th October, 1971, a notice was received by...
V.K. JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1974
Reported in: [1975]98ITR469(Delhi)
S. Rangarajan, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 744 and 745 of 1971 also. Briefly stated the facts are that on April 24, 1971, at about 8'45 a.m. three raiding parties, consisting of income-tax officials, conducted a raid on the residential-cum-office premises of the petitioner (No. 5P/37-C, Faridabad, NIT) and two other places at Faridabad later in the day. It is needless to set out all the facts pertaining to the said raid and searches. 2. Not all the contentions put forward concerning them in this and the connected writ petitions are available to the petitioner in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), [1974] 93 ITR 305 In that case Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and Rule 112 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), under which these raids, etc., were made, were attacked as being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court repelled t...
Laksmi Restaurant and anr. Vs. the Regional Provident Funds Commission ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1974
Reported in: 10(1974)DLT369; 1975LabIC1186; 1975RLR219
B.C. Misra, J. (1) The petitioners have filed this writ petition against the demand of the respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 11th May, 1967 (annexure M) by which a sum of Rs. 7990.00besides administrative charges for the period from February, 1962 to November, 1966, have been demanded from the petitioner and are proposed to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. This demand follows an order passed by the respondent Commissioner dated 17th January, 1967 (annexure J), by which he has made the assessment of the aforesaid amount. (2) The material facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is a pertnership firm of which petitioner No. 2 is a partner, which is carrying on business of running a restaurant, inter alia, at Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 is hereinafter referred to as'the petitioners'. The firm is registered under the Delhi Shops & Establishment Act,1954. T he question arising for determination is whether the petitioners are governed by the ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bal Krishan Thaper
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT22
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) On 20th August. 1971, at about 12.30 P. M. Food Inspectors A James, P. P. Sinha and K.S. Ahluwalia visited the shop of the respondent Bal Krishan Thaper at Tilak Bazar Khari Baoli, Delhi, Food Inspector A Ja es (Public Witness 2) purchased three tins of Saccharin, each containing 400 grams, on payment of Rs. 27.00 as their price for purposes of analysis. The Food Inspector sealed .the tins with his own seal and delivered one part of the sample to the respondent. One part was sent to the Public Analyst. Similarly Food Inspector P.P. Sinha (PW 3) purchased three packets of Saccharin from the respondent for the purposes of analysis. He also, after sealing the packets, delivered one packet of sample to the respondent and sent the second packet to the Pubhc Analyst. The kampie of Saccharin taken by P.P. S nha. Food Inspector, bore number PPS-898 and the one taken by A. James bore number AJ-162. (2) The Public Analyst on analysing the sample AJ-162 made the following re...
Urmila Ginda Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi115; 11(1975)DLT57; 1975LabIC1044
S. Rangarajan. J.(1) The short but interesting question in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner, who belongs to a high caste family (Malhotras of Punjab) and who married Fit. Ltd. C D. Ginda, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Adharmi community i.e.chamar). is also entitled to be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in respect of a public office reserved for backward communities, Scheduled Castes and Tribes.(2) The marriage is said to have taken place on 15th January, 1969 (this fact has not been stated in the petition, but Shri D.K,.Kapur, learoed counsel for the petitioner, states this from the bar and this fact has not been disputed. The petitioner graduated from the Delhi University and also passed the one year intensive .course in Russian from the Institute of Russian Studies, Jawaharlal Mehru University , New Delhi in the year 1966. When a post of Senior Russina-to-English Translator in the Ministry of defense in the scale of Rs. 325-575 was advertised she applied for ...
Makhan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1974
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi227
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner admits that he was appointed as a Constable in the Delhi Police force on 12-10-1953; he underwent the full course of training prescribed for Police Constables and was confirmed in the pay scale of 75-1-85-2-95 as a Police Constable. He/holds a civil Heavy Driving license. From the year 1958, as per his service book (not 1957 as stated) he has been driving police vehicles for which he received a special pay of Rs. 20.00 per mensem. He reached the maximum of his grade, namely Rs. 95.00 in the year 1968. (2) It is further averred by the petitioner that he had made a request for his being sent for training which would entitle him for promotion to a rank higher ian that of a Constable, but this was not allowed to him on the plea that no training was necessary for Drivers; he, was told he would be promoted in his turn-these allegations have been denied coupled with the assertion that his request was 'dealt with on merits'. (3) The present petition under Ar...
Kailash Chand Vs. Hem Wati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-1974
Reported in: 11(1975)DLT199; 1974RLR549
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This second appeal under Sections' of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter criled 'the Act', is directed against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming that of the Rent Controller made in proceedings under Section 25 of the Act initiated by the appellant as a sequel to the threat of eviction from the premises in dispute by virtus of an order of eviction obtained by the respondant/landlady for the eviction of the tenant/respondent No 2 in the appeal. The order of eviction was obained by the landlady in proceedings under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act, inter alia, on the ground that the landlady, who was the owner of the premises, required the same for her residence and that the tenant had built, acquired vacant porseision or had been allotted a residence. The application for eviction .was also grounded.on the allegation that the tenant had unauthorisedly sublet a portion of the premises in favor of Raj Bahadur and lakshmi Chand. The application did not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »