Delhi Court February 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.
Premier Tyres Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade P ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi204; [1976]46CompCas297(Delhi); ILR1975Delhi777
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) Two questions are raised by the writ petition for decision at the threshold, namely:- (1)Whether the Restrictive Trade Practices (Enquiry) Regulations, 1970 (hereinafter called 'Regulations of 1970') which applied to the proceeding titled Application No. 1 of 1971 pending before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission would also apply to a subsequent application filed on October 26, 1974 for the amendment of Application No. 1 of 1971 though in the meanwhile the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1974 (hereinaller called 'Regulations of 1974') came into force on June 29, 1974, clause 87 of which repeated the Regulations of 1970 without affecting the operation of the repealed Regulations or any investigations, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Regulations so that all investigations and legal proceedings shall be con...
Radhey Bai Vs. Javitri Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi828
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed by the legal representatives of the tenant against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd January, 1973 by which the appeal has been dismissed and the order of the Additional Controller dated 24th September, 1970 striking off the defense of the tenant under sub-section (7) of section 15 of the Act has been affirmed.(2) The premises in dispute are situate in 60 Daryaganj, Delhi, and were let out on a rent of Rs. 100 per month. On 16th March. 1964 the respondent landlady instituted a petition against Kundaii La, tenant, (the predecessor in-interest of the appellants) on the ground of unlawful subletting being specified in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. On 23rd August, 1965 the respondent landlady filed an application under section 15(2) of the Act praying for an order to the ten...
S.L. Kapur Vs. P.D. Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1975
Reported in: 1975RLR335
B.C. Misra, J. (1) Respondent had sued appellant u/s 14(l)(a) on 17.8.66. An order of deposit of rent arrears was made u/s 15(1) on 16.10.68 and deposit having been made petition was dismissed on22.11.68. Tenant made default again and after notice he was sued on 20.2.70. Controller dismissed the petition but Tribunal held against tenant. Latter appealed to High Court.(2) It is admitted case of parties that in previous case tenant had complied with order u/s 15(1) of the Act and having paid the arrears of rent for the period ending 10th Nov. 1968 escaped eviction. Thereafter the rent for subsequent period was due and payable, which is in dispute in the present petition. It is again not disputed that the tenancy month as the month for payment of rent commences on the 11th day of calendar month and expires . on the 10th day of the following month, as per the agreement of tenancy. The rent' note further requires the tenant to pay the rent at the commencement of the tenancy month. Under sec...
P.C. Saxena Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR106(Delhi)
B.C. Misra, J.1. This order will dispose of three first appeals from Orders Nos. 92, 93 and 94 of 1969, which have raised a common question of law and can be disposed of together.2. The material facts of the case giving rise to the appeals are that one Maharaj Narain Saxena died on 28th October, 1959. On or about 10th June, 1966, the appellant before me filed three separate petitions under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate to realise various debts and securities mentioned in the petitions. These petitions were allowed by the subordinate judge (exercising jurisdiction) by orders dated 30th April, 1968. On the material on record, he allowed the petition and ordered the grant of succession certificate subject to the production of a certificate of clearance in respect of the estate duty of the deceased under Section 56(2) of the Estate Duty Act. It is common ground that the appellant has neither applied for nor obtained the requisite certificate. ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors. Vs. Ail Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1590; ILR1975Delhi346
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Shri C. D. Sharma, Magistrate 1st Class, acquitted Ail Dass and Bharat Sweets Bhandar in a case under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. For getting the order of acquittal dated October 27, 1967 set aside this appeal was filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.(2) The case relates to a sample of butter which was taken on March 14, 1967 by a Food Inspector from Bharat Sweets Bhandar, a sweets shop at No. 14, G. T. Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. On a part of the sample being analysed it was reported by the Public Analyst to be adulterated due to 4.3 per cent excess in moisture and 1.5 per cent deficiency in fat. On the basis of that report prosecution was instituted against Ail Dass as the vendor and Bharat Sweets Bhandar as the proprietor-company. The accused were, however, acquitted as the trial Magistrate was of the view that at Bharat Sweets Bhandar butter as such was not sold and the butter kept in the shop was to ...
Amrik Singh Vs. State Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi69b; 1975RLR69
M.S. Joshi, J.(1) One Ram Chand Chopra filed a complaint against Amrik Singh and the facts alleged tended to make out offences under sections 420 and 406 Indian Penal Code . To support the complaint Ram Chand gave his own statement and offered some documentary evidence. The magistrate passed an order for the summoning of the accused because on Consideration of the evidence a prima facie case under section 420 I. P. C. was made out against him. The accused approached the Session Court impugning the magistrate's order on the ground it was not a speaking order and deserved, thereforee, to be quashed. He cited authorities of this Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Prem Lata, (1973) 9 D.L.T. and Mukarb Karim v. Bundu, (1973) 9 D.L.T. 318. The Additional Sessions Judge found these authorities to be fully applicable to the case and made a recommendation under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the order under attack being set-aside. The revision petition came up before Ansari, J. for ...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi174
S. Rangarajan (1) The petitioner is the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., which filed this petition on 9-5-1967. under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notices of demand served on behalf of respondent No. 1 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) by respondent No. 2 (Assistant Assessor & Collector of the Corporation L io restrain them from enforcing the aforementioned notices of demand or to collect the amount specified therein in any manner, and alternatively, to direct amendment of the said notices of demand (copies of which arc Annexures E and F to the petition) by hearing and determining them. The demand dated 31-12-1966 is for a sum of Rs. 29,13,170.56 P. due on account of electricity tax on energy generated by the petitioner, livable under section 113 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, for the period 1-7-1959 to 31-3-66. The Union of India has been imp leaded as the third respondent but this petition has been contested by respondents 1 and 2.(2) It will be nec...
Sobha Singh and anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi825
Avadh Behari, J. (1) This is a tenant's appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated October 20, 1973. There is no dispute about facts. The appellants are father and son. Years ago they took on rent the respondent's premises Z-57, situated in West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Both of them are collectively referred to as the tenant for the sake of convenience. The respondent purchased the premises in 1969 but they were in occupation of these premises as tenant even before the purchase, by the present landlord.(2) What appears to have happened later on is this. These very appellants took another premises subsequently on rent. They arc premises No. 26/78, also situated in West Patel Nagar.(3) After the appellants had acquired vacant possession of house No. 26/7'8 in West Patel Nagar the landlord brought an eviction petition on November 26, 1971. His ground of ejectment was that the tenant had acquired another residence. This is ground (h) of the proviso to S. 14(1) of the Delhi ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Nestles Products (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1753; ILR1975Delhi770
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) This appeal is on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is against an order of Shri H. C. Goel, Additional Session Judge, whereby he acquitted Messrs Nestles Products India) Limited, Delhi, of a charge under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.(2) On December 6, 1969, at about 11.20 a.m., Food Inspector Sohan Lal Mehra went to a provision store, known as Biria Provision Store, at 27/13, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. From the salesman, Shri Basant Kumar, the Food Inspector purchased for purposes of analysis three sealed tins of Milkmaid brand of condensed milk sweetened bearing batch No. MOJCJ. On the same day one of these tins was delivered to Prem Parkash Bhatnagar, Public Analyst for Municipal Corporation of Delhi area. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulteries due to 1.30 per cent deficiency in total milk solids. The result of the analysis as given in the report (Exhibit PE) was as follows :- 'MILKfat...
Radhey Bai Vs. Savitri Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1975
Reported in: 1975RLR234
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This S.A.O. has been filed by the legal representatives of the tenant against appellate order of Rent Control Tribunal dt. 23.1.73 by which appeal has been dismissed and order of Additional Controller dt. 24.9.70 striking off the defense of the tenant under sub-section (7) section 15 of the Act has been affirmed. (2) The premises in dispute are situate in 60, Daryaganj, Delhi, and were let out on a rent of Rs. 100.00 per month. On 16th March, 1964 the respondent landlady instituted a petition against Kundan Lal tenant, (the predecessor in-interest of the appellants) on the ground of unlawful subletting being specified in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. On 23rd August, 1965 the respondent landlady filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Act praying for an order to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future rent. On 24th September, 1965 the Controller passed the requisite order under section 15(2) of the Act. praying...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »