Delhi Court October 1975 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Satya Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1975
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi721
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) In this and similar writ petitions which seek to challenge orders of detention passed under section 3 as well as section 16A(3) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MISA'), a preliminary question has been raised that they are not maintainable. A similar contention was repelled by us for reasons which have been elaborately stated in Smt. Bharati Nayyar v. Union of India & Others, (Crl. Writ No. 121 of 1975) (1) decided on 15-9-1975 (we shall hereafter refer to the same as our previous decision). We have, in essence, held as follows :-(2) That the order of detention under the Misa could not be challenged under Article 226 only if the same is passed for it. The rule of law will not permit arbitrary executive action; judicial review, subject of course to certain limits and depending on the facts of each case, would be clearly available where it is shown on behalf of the detenu that the impugned order of detention under section...
Prithvi Raj Sachdev Vs. Deep Chand Ram Dass and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-1975
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT141
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a tenant challenges an order of the Additional Rent Controller by which his plea for stay of proceedings in the petition for his ejectment, pending the trial of a regular civil action filed by the landlords for the recovery of rent, has been turned down. (2) It appears that while the tenant has at all material time been in occupation of the premises in dispute, there has been some controversy as to the person or persons who could be said to be the landlords in relation to the premises. This controversy has its genesis in the death of one Deep Chand who, during his life time, had been carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of M/s Deep Chand Ram Dass and Sons. Apparently the property was owned by the partnership. The partnership was apparently reconstituted after his death. An earlier petition for the eviction of the tenant was withdrawn on the objection of the tenant that all the legal ...
The Registrar of Companies, Delhi Vs. Ur. Iiardit Singh Giani, Liquida ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1975
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas152(Delhi); ILR1976Delhi164
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi, against the judgment of Hardayal Hardy J. (as his Lordship then was) dated November 6, 1967, in F.A.O. No. 47-D of 1966, whereby the learned Judge allowed the appeal, set aside an order of the District Judge, dated December 21, 1966, removing Dr. Hardit Singh Giani, Liquidator, and associated one other person, Shri V. S. Juneja, as Additional Liquidator with Shri Hardit Singh Giani.(2) The facts which have led up to this Letters Patent Appeal are the following. M/s National Planners Limited was incorporated on February 23, 1946, as a private company limited by shares under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It was converted into a public company by a special resolution passed on June 5, 1946. Its nominal capital was Rs. 20,00,000.00 divided into 1,00,000 preference shares of Rs. 10.00 each and 2,00,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 5.00 each. Its paid up capital, as on June 30, 1949, was Rs. 9...
Muni Lal Vs. Dulara and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1975
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT123
Avadh Bchari, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated July 29, 1972. (2) These are the facts. On March 19, 1969, the respondent landlord brought a petition for the eviction of the tenant appellant. The sole ground of eviction was that the tenant had sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of the premises to one Bhagwan Das respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the landlord after the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). (3) The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the cause of action did not subsist on March 19, 1969 when the eviction petition was filed as the sub-tenant had vacated the premises in February 1967. Consequently, the Controller held that the landlord was not entitled to claim eviction. (4) The landlord appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took a view different from the Controller, It passed an order of eviction in favor of the landlord on the ground that once subletting had...
R.N. Vasudeva Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1975
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT109; ILR1976Delhi624; 1976RLR142
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The petitioner who was a member of the Indian Administrative Service was occupying Government residence in 3, Purana Kila Road, New Delhi, at the material time. The payment of rent by him, inter alia, was governed by clause (4) (b) of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Amendment Rules, 1964 which amended the parent rules of 1963 being Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The relevant part of the rule is as follows : - 'S. R. 317-B-3. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2) or (3), Government accommodation may be allotted to any officer, or, if he is in occupation of such accommodation, it may be allowed to be retained by him, under the provisions of F. R. 45-A, in the event of his becoming the owner of a house either in his own name or in the name of any other person or of a member of his family becoming the owner of a house, in the following cases, namely- (b) where the house belongs to the officer, as a member of a Hindu ...
L.D. Malhotra Industries Vs. Ropi Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi278
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) These are two appeals. This judgment will govern them both.(2) The dispute arises this way. There are two industries engaged in the manufacture of dress hooks which are generally used in garments. One is Ropi Industries. Henceforward I will call them Ropis. It is a partnership concern. They set up this industry in 1963. They manufacture hooks at Navsari a town in Gujarat. They started with humble beginnings. In the beginning their sales were only a few thousand. Over the years the sales have increased. They sell their goods at various places in India including Delhi.(3) The other industry is called L. D. Malhotra Industries. Henceforward I will call them Malhotras. They also manufacture dress hooks. They are located in Delhi. They got their mark Kismat (word per se) registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks on December 26, 1967. On that date they were not using this word. In their application under s. 18(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1958 (the Act) to the Re...
Harish Chander Sharma Vs. Priti Sharma Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi142; 1976RLR267
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) Shri Harish Chander Sharma, the plaintiff, filed the present suit for partition of the joint Hindu family properties. In the plaint it was alleged(2) When the award was filed by the arbitrator, the Deputy Registrar noticed that it was unstamped, prima facie, it being an instrument of partition. The Deputy Registrar, after hearing the counsel for the parties, recorded a note on 18th of December, 1974 and listed the case before the Registrar for orders. The Registrar issued notice to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority and after hearing the counsel for the parties as well as the Standing Counsel for Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, directed that the matter be laid before the court for a decision on the two points :- 1. Whether an award on a reference made in a pending Suit dividing immovable property of the value of Rs. 100.00 or more must be engrossed on a requisite stamp paper; and 2.If it is not so done before filing in court, should it be impounded under se...
India International Centre Vs. R. Shri S.N. Pandit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi60
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The questions which were before 'the trial Court also arise in this appeal, viz., (1) what was the duration of the contract by which Respondent S. N. Pandit was employed by the appellant India International Centre (hereafter called 'the Centre') and (2) whether the termination of the respondent's service .the appellant before the expiry of the duration was in breach of the contract and if so to what damages is the respondent entitled. These questions have been determined by the trial Court and would have to be determined in appeal primarily on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues framed, and the evidence adduced before the trial Court. If the facts had been differently pleaded, differently put into issues and proved, a different view of law could perhaps have been taken. But, as will be shown later, such a different case cannot now arise on the existing record.(2) In a suit for damages for breach of contract of employment filed by Pandit against ...
Anil Kumar Mathur Etc. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1975
Reported in: 1976RLR321
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) Petitioners father was in the Army. He died on 15.5.69 in field area. Thereafter petitioners mother died. They applied for Letters of Administration alleging that investment made by her was from the assets left by their father and she had so done for the benefit of joint Hindu family and since the mother held the property in trust. Court fees was not payable. After narrating above facts, Judgments proceeds :- (2) A petition for the grant of probate or Letters of Administration is made under Sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. After the petition is made, the question of court-fee immediately springs up. Chapter 3-A of the Court-fees Act, 1870, relates to Probate, Letters of Administration and Certificate of Administration. Section 19-I of the Court-fees Act, 1870 provides for payment of court-fee in respect of probates and Letters of Administration. Schedule I of Article 11 provides for the rate of Court fees. In pursuance of the provisions of sec...
Harbhajan Singh Vs. Shakuntala Devi Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi175; 12(1976)DLT266; 1976RLR178
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the tenant assails the order of the Competent Authority, under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter called 'the Act', by which the authority granted permission to the landlady, respondent No. 1 herein, to institute proceedings for his eviction.2. The landlady sought permission under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act from the Competent Authority to institute proceedings for the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the grounds that the premises, which had been let for a residential purpose was being misused for a commercial purpose; that the tenant bad acquired alternative accommodation in Wazirpur Colony for his residence; that the tenant had 'deserted the premises' for the last over 6 months; and that the tenant had unauthorisedly sublet or parted with the possession of the premises. The application was resisted on behalf of the tenant and it was contended that the premises ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »