Delhi Court December 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.
Bahadur Singh Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi375
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) Since questions of law and most of facts arc common in these writ petitions it would be proper to dispose them of by a single judgment.(2) The Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued notification dated 24th October, 1961, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein called 'the Act') staling that land measuring 16,000 acres situate in Cantonment area, village Naraina., including the lands of the petitioners was required by the Government at the public expeny for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of Delhi. Different declarations under section 6 of the Act were issued subsequently in 1966 in respect of the lands of the petitioners specifying the field numbers staling that the field numbers mentioned in the declaration were required to be taken by the Government at the public expense for the aforsesaid public purpose, namely, 'for the planned development of Delhi' and in consequence the Collector of Delhi was directed under section 7 of the Act to take...
Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. Controller of Aluminium and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi225; ILR1976Delhi336
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner company, which manufactures aluminium, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the show cause notice dated 21-8-75 (copy of which is Annexure Z to the petition) issued by the Collector of Mirzapur (R-5), giving the petitioner an opportunity of making a representation and of being heard concerning why 2032.512 M. Tons of aluminium which was seized by the Superintendent of Central Excise Srp Ii (R-3) on 16th/17th July, 1975 should not be confiscated. for contravention of the orders referred to in the said notice.(2) After issuing a notice to the respondents to show cause why this Writ Petition should not be admitted the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. It was felt the petition required examination; it was admitted and the respondents were given an opportunity to file further retunis and the petitioner also to file further rejoinder. Having regard to nearly rupees t...
Eklera China Clay Works and Three ors. Vs. AshwIn and Co. and Three or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi283; ILR1976Delhi297
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.(1) These two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 49 and 55 of 1975 are cross-appeals. Both have been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, H. L. Anand J. dated February 27, 1975, in Civil Writ Petition No. 1087 of 1974, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, quashed an order of the Central Government, dated August 3, 1974, which was impugned in the Writ Petition, and remanded the matter to the Central Government with a direction that the Central Government should decide the matter afresh in the light of the judgment after giving an opportunity to the petitioner in the Writ Petition and to such other person or persons as the Central Government may consider necessary of making a representation. (2) The appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 1975 are (1) M/s Eklera China Clay Works through its partner, Shri Krishnalal lswarlal Patel, (2) Shantilal Ishwarlal Patel. (3) Amratlal lswarlal Patel. and (4) Gordhanbhai Ishw...
Amber Woollen Mills Vs. Nominations (India), New Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi423
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is an application on behalt of the plaintiffs for setting aside the dismissal of the suit by order dated 22-4-1975, and for restoration of the suit on the file of the Court. (2) It is stated in the application that after the case was listed before B the Court on 26th March 1975. the case was adjourned to appear in the list for arguments on preliminary issues. It is also stated that the plainlifis' counsel has been going through the weekly and daily lists of this Court and has been watching the case in the said lists. That all of a sudden on 20th April 1975, the counsel for the plaintiffs got a case for Jodhpur High Court and became busy so much so that he could not concentrate on the lists very meticulously. It is further stated that due to oversight the counsel for the plaintiffs skipped over the above case when it appeared on 22-4-1975, and, thereforee, he could not appear on 22-4-1975, and, thereafter, the advocate went to Jodhpur on 23-4-1975 and returne...
Fateh Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi162
ORDER1. Since common question of law is involved in these petitions, it would be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of these writ petitions areas under. Land measuring 4826 Bighas 4 bids was situated in village Masoodpur was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, vide notification dated 23-1-1965 for acquisition for a public purpose viz. for the planned development of Delhi. The aforesaid notification included land comprised in Khasra Nos. 267, 269, 275, 303 Min and 274/2 Min in all measuring 63 Bighas belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act to their land being acquired. The appropriate authority after considering the objections, rejected the same and issued declaration dated 6-9-1966 under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of the land of petitioners including other land. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued to the peti...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi359; 1976RLR462
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Ashok Kumar, aged 17 years, was tried in the court of Shri S. C. Chaturvedi, Additional Sessions Judge, on the charge of murdering Rajinder Kumar aged about 23 years, with a knife. Along with Ashok his younger brother Vijay Kumar was also challenged for the above said offence but since he was below' the age of 16 years on the date of the offence, he was sent for trial under the Children Act, 1960. The Additional Sessions Judge found Ashok Kumar guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Against his conviction and sentence he has preferrd this appeal.(2) Hukam Chand (Public Witness 1). father of Rajinder Kumar, lived with his family in House No. 273, Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk. Delhi. The said house was owned by the uncle of the accused. On 1st June. 1971, Jai Bhagwan, father of the accused, had lodged a report that Rajinder had kidnapped his daughter Saroj Kumari. Saroj was recovered from the possession of Rajinder at Ahmeda...
Tulsi Dass and anr. Vs. Panna Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1975
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas169(Delhi)
M.R.A. Ansari, J.1. Panna Lal, who is the first respondent in this appeal, filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000 by way of damages for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 2nd May, 1962. According to the averments in the said application, Panna Lal was traveling on the pillion of the scooter driven by his brother, Harbans Lal, at about 5.15 p.m. When they reached near the crossing of Rohtak Road and Faiz Road, a truck bearing registration No. DLG 4726 which was being driven by one Pyare . Singh, who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal, rashly and negligently knocked down the scooter as a result of which Panna Lal was dragged to a distance of 20 or 25 paces and received multiple injuries including fractures. He claimed the said amount of compensation jo...
Metro Electric Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi195; 1976RLR426
F.S. Gill, J.(1) [THE petitioner entered into a contract with the D.D.A. for doing electric work at Interstate Bus Terminus at Delhi in 1970. Work was to be done in 11 months. It could not be finished due to slow progress of building work. Petitioner made 2 claims that due to rise in prices, his rates should be enhanced by 22% and that due to slow progress of building work, his labour remained idle and he should be allowed Rs 16,500.00. The matter was referred to arbitrator who awarded enhancement of rates by 18% and awarded Rs 800.00 for the other claim. Petitioner applied U/Ss. 14 and 17 for making award rule of the Court while respondent applied U/Ss. 30 and 33 for setting aside of the award. After narrating above facts, the judgment para 13 onwards is : (2) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that from the very beginning, the Delhi Development Authority had been totally denying the claim of the contractor on the ground that the enchancement claimed was extra-c...
Shanti Devi Vs. Rattan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1975
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi573; 1977RLR531
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is second appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 22-2-1977, dismissing the application of the petitioner and holding that the proceedings for eviction were not liable to be reopened at her instance under proviso to Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Amendment Act, 1976).(2) The petitioner's husband Mukat Behari (since deceased) was a tenant of the demised premises. The respondent landlord filed an application for eviction on the ground of bona fide need and got an order of eviction from the Rent Controller on 8-8-1972. Said Mukat Behari was however allowed four years time to surrender vacant possession. Mukat Behari died in April, 1975. In July, 1975. the respondent landlord moved an application for execution of the eviction order against the legal heirs of the deceased, the proceedings were pending when on 1-12-1975 an ordinance known as Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance No. 25 of 1...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›