Delhi Court October 1975 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.
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Shashi Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1975
Reported in: 1976RLR208
B.C. Misra, J.(1) It is next submitted that the plaintiff respondent does not have legal right in the matter and the lower appellate court was clearly in error in holding that the matter had been concluded by a contract or that the plaintiff- respondent had acquired any right in the land. In my opinion the right that the plaintiff- respondent possesses is to see that qua her the appellant acts according to law and the statutory scheme framed under Section 22 of the Development Act and the appropriate rules and directions of the Lt. Governor. The respondent is feeling aggrieved by the non-allotment of the polt of land in dispute and she certainly has a right to see that the appellant performs its duties in her favor according to law. equity and good conscience. I have found that the appellant was legally wrong in trying to sell these plots of land by public auction and its counsel has conceded to set this wrong right. The appellant was also wrong in treating the waiting list closed with...
B.K. Jhamb Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, New Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi98; ILR1976Delhi1b
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) The principal question involved in this writ petition is as to the correct meaning of the Explanationn to rule 6 of the Delhi High Court (Staff) Seniority Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Delhi Rules') and the first proviso thereof read with Schedules I and Ii of the Rules. As the questions involved were important and likely to affect service conditions of the staff of this High Court, the case was referred to this full bench. (2) On December 1, 1950, petitioner, B. K. Jhamb, joined Pirnjab High Court as a clerk. On September 15, 1960 he was promoted as Officiating Senior Translator in the grade of Rs, 150-10-300. On August 22, 1961 Ram Chander, respondent No. 5, was appointed in the Punjab High Court as Officiating Judgment Writer. On April 1, 1964 petitioner was confirmed as Senior Translator in the grade of Rs. 150-10-300 but respondent No. 5 was then not confirmed. On November 7, 1964, the pay-scales of Personal Assistants and Judgment Writers in the Punjab...
R.P. Kapur Etc. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1285; 1976RLR189
M.R.A. Ansari (1) In the writ petition, the petitioners had challenged virus of Ss. 4 and 29(2) of the Act. on the ground that these violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(l)(f) of the Constitution. Mr. R P. Kapur, petitioner No. 1 who appeared in person and argued the case both on his behalf and on behalf of the other petitioners, did not press this ground at the time of the arguments in view of the Presidential Order suspending the invocation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India during the Emergency which was subse-quently ratified by Parliament. Mr. Kapur, however challenged the virus of section 29(2) of the Act on the ground that it was an arbitrary piece of legislation and did not lay down any guidelines for the imposition of penalties provided under section 29(2) of the Act. In support of this ground, he argued that the penalty provided under section 29(2) of the Act was far too excessive in considering the nature of th...
Ramji Dass Vs. H.C. Arora and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi179
ORDER1. The principal question that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a tenant raises is whether the -application of the landlord under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter called 'the Act', for leave to evict the tenant is barred by the principle of rest judicata, because an earlier application for the same relief had been 'dismissed as withdrawn'. This question, on account of which apparently the petition had been admitted, however, does not survive and was, thereforee, not pressed on behalf of the tenant in view of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ No. 1059 of 1972 decided on 12-3-1975 = (Reported in 1975 Lab Ic 1715, where a similar question arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was answered, in the negative.2. At the hearing of the petition, however, learned counsel for the tenant made a feeble attempt to assail the order of the Authority under the Act, granting permi...
JaIn Soap Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-1975
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT147(Del)
T.P.S. Chawla, J.1. There are three petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before me. The petitioner in each of them has been manufacturing soap for the last many years. For diverse periods falling between September 1962 and 29th February 1964, the petitioners were required to pay excise duty on the soap manufactured by them at a rate higher than that which they considered was applicable. Nevertheless, they paid by duty demanded, under protest, and then applied for the refund of what the alleged to be the excess. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise rejected their claims. Appeals to the Collector of Central Excise, and petitions for revision to the Central Government were dismissed. The petitioners seek to have all these orders quashed, and pray for directions to be issued to the Union to refund the amounts over-charged.2. The only question requiring determination in these cases is whether the petitioners have been charged excise duty at the correct rate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›