Delhi Court November 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.
Jai NaraIn and ors. Vs. the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi166
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed against the declaration of the Delhi Administration dated 20th September, 1968 published in the Gazette on 28th November, 1968 (Annexure A-III) (hereinafter called as the declaration in dispute) under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) (hereinafter called as the Act). The land in dispute is situated in the revenue state of Chandrawal alias Shahdara. The petition has been filed on the ground that after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 1st November, 1966 published in the Gazette on 10th November, 1966 (Annexure A-1). The said declaration related to the land in dispute. Eventually another declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 20th September, 1968 published in the Gazette on 28th November, 1968 (Annexure A-II) (which bears precisely the same date as of Annexure III) and by this declaration the land in dispute of the petitioner was deleted...
Union of India Vs. B. Prahlad and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi236; 1976RLR278
1. Long years ago the Indian Railways Act (Act Ix of 1890) was enacted. It raised problems of complexity some of which have not been solved even this day. This appeal raised one such question though the amount involved is small. The question it involves is: who has the right to sue the Railway -the consignor or the consignee Judicial opinion is divided. Eminent judges are ranged on opposing sides. 2. The plaintiffs respondents who are commission agents brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,000/- against the Union of India on account of damages for deterioration of a consignment of loose raw and fresh plantains loaded in a wagon from Savda railway station for delivery to the plaintiffs at New Delhi railway station. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal the Additional District Judge decreed the suit with costs by his order dated November 30, 1968. Now there is an appeal to this court by the Union of India. 3. Mr. H. S. Dhir on behalf of the appellant has rai...
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1975
Reported in: [1977(34)FLR206]; ILR1976Delhi565; 1976LabIC918
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This matter was heard early this year and judgment was reserved. On an application of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 the matter was reheard after considerable number of adjournments were given to suit the convenience of counsel. (2) The principal point for decision in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the meaning to be given to the word 'workman' in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the scope of the applicability of the said Act vis-a-vis reference being made of alleged industrial disputes to a Labour Court or a Tribunal under the Act. (3) The petitioner is a registered company with a branch office at Delhi. It is engaged in the sale of heavy machinery and other equipment manafactured by it. Respondent No. 2, A. P. Goel, who is a qualified Chartered Accountant was an employee in the Delhi branch of the petitioner. It is not disputed that at the relevant time his employment were Rs. 883.00 per month. The serv...
Coz and Kings (Agents) Ltd., New Delhi Vs. their Workmen and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi168
V.S. Deshpande, J. 1. The main question for decision relates to the construction of sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has to be read with sub-section (3) thereof. These are as follows:-'19 (3) An award shall, subject to the provisions of this section, remain in operation for a period of one year from the date on which the award become enforceable under Section 17-A: Provided that the appropriate Government may reduce the said period and fix such period as it thinks fit Provided further that the appropriate Government may, before the expiry of the, said period, extend the period of operation by any period not exceeding one year at a time as it thinks fit so, however, that the total period of operation of any award does not exceed three years from the date on which it came into operation. ** ** ** (5) Nothing contained in sub-section (3) shall Apply to any award which by its nature, terms or other circumstances does not impose, after it has been g...
Deva Gir Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi534
Prakash Narain, J.(1) Writ petitions 762 of 1974, 1162 of 1974, 144 of 1974, 1150 of 1974, 1179 of 1974, 1200 of 1974, 1536 of 1974, 1199 of 1974, 1092 of 1974. 1458 of 1974 and 1533 of 1974 will be disposed of by this one judgment as a common question of law arises in all of them. (2) Public road transport in Delhi was run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from 1957 under the provisions contained in Chapter Xiv of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. 1957. hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Corporation Act. The road transport was taken away from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and given to a separate Corporation known as the Delhi Transport Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporations Act. 1948. hereinafter referred to as the Act, by cnactment of the Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act, 1971. Prior to the transport services in Delhi being by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the same were operated by an authority known as the Delhi Road Transport ...
Gurmukh Singh Vs. Mis Inderprasth Finance Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1975
Reported in: 1976RLR1
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By these petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners who are plaintiffs in different suits filed by them against a financing Company, respondent in the present petitions, challenge an order of the First Appellate Court by which the petitioner's applications, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to restrain the financing company from seizing the vehicles in dispute, were dismissed. (2) It appears that the financing company concerned had financed to the extent of different amounts and on different dates, the purchase by the petitioners of different motor vehicles under identical arrangements which purport to be and have the appearance of hire purchase agreement. It is the case of the financing company that, in terms of the hire purchase agreements in question, the hirers were under an obligation to pay a monthly Installment of a specified amount with the option to purchase the property after a specified amount had be...
Amir Singh Vs. Chaudhry Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1975
Reported in: 1975RLR125
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This petition is directed against an order made by an Additional Sessions Judge, on the 18th of May, 1973, whereby he confirmed the finding by the trial Magistrate which in turn was based on the answer given to a reference by a civil court which reference had been made under section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereafter called' the Code'). The trial court's decision was dated the 11th of August, 1972. (2) In the proceedings initiated under section 145 of the Code the Magistrate was unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the land in dispute as within two months next before the preliminary order. He acted in accordance with section 146 of the Code and made a reference to the civil court. Section 146 is :- (......) (3) The civil court after receiving the reference did not dispose it of expeditiously and ultimately answered the reference by its order dated the 30th of July, 1969, which is reproduced in extenso :- VIDE my jud...
Ram Ralaya Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi172; ILR1976Delhi259
Avadh Behart Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a revision against the order of the Additional District Judge Delhi dated December 2,1974.(2) These are the facts. The petitioner was an employee of Oriental Radio Corporation. He was dismissed from service. He went to the Labour Court. The Labour Court refused reinstatement, but made an order for Rs. 7020 in favor of the employee against the Corporation for wages.(3) In the meanwhile the Corporation became bankrupt. The employee approached the Official Receiver for the admission of his debt of Rs. 7020. The Official Receiver by order dated February 24, 1973 admitted the claim of the employee to the extent of Rs. 2106 but refused to admit the remainder of the claim.(4) Against the decision of the Official Receiver, the employee preferred an appeal under s. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (the Act) to the judge, Insolvents Estate. This appeal was filed on March 20, 1973.(5) S. 68 provides that a person, aggrieved by the order of the Official...
Ram Saroop and anr. Vs. Janki Dass Jai Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi219; ILR1976Delhi153
T.V.R. Tatachari (1) This Regular Second Appeal has come up before us on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court, Prakash Narain J. The two appellants herein, Ram Saroop and Bhim sen, were the plaintiffs in Suit No. 825 of 1966 on the file of Shri Shamsher Singh Kanwar, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi. They were the owners of Shop No. 256, Anaj Mandi, Shahdara. The respondents herein, Messrs Janki Dass Jai Kumar and the Delhi Municipal Corporation, were the two defendants in the suit. The case of the appellants-plaintiffs was that Messrs Janki Dass Jai Kumar had been in possession of the aforesaid shop as a tenant and had been carrying on the business of food grains for the last fifteen years, that the said tenant, with a view to set up a factory in the shop, had applied for power connection and was trying to put up machinery in the shop without the permission of the owners, that the shop was an old construction and if a factory was run in the premises by putting up an e...
S. Vishan Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi183; 1976RLR256
P.S. Safeer (1) This petition raises the question as to what was the effect of the abrogation of Rule 31 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 by the amendment carried out on the 3rd of August, 1963 in respect of the decision arrived at earlier on 22nd September, 1962 by the Managing Officer to transfer the property concerned in this litigation to the petitioner. In consequence of the order made by the Managing Officer the President of India entered into an agreement with the petitioner on the 29th September, 1962 in terms whereof the price of the property was fixed at Rs. 6,692 on payment of which the ownership was to be transferred to the petitioner.(2) The petitioner and respondent No. 3 Smt. Dyali Bai were in occupation of portions of the property bearing No. XV/2827-28, Multani Dhandha, Paharganj, New Delhi and the Managing Officer found that the petitioner was in occupation of the larger area and was for that reason entitled to the transfer of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »