Delhi Court February 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.
D.R. Malhotra Vs. P.R. Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi203; 1975RLR309
B.C. Misra, J. (1) D. R. Malhotra, the tenant ha.s filed this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), against the appellate orderof Mr. N. C. Kochar, Rent Control Tribunal, dated 7th February, 1974, by which he has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of Mr.Jaspal Singh, Controller, dated 5th January, 1973, finally striking off the defense of the appellant herein under Section 15(7) of the Act.(2) The material facts of the case are that the respondent landlord instituted a petition for eviction of the appellant on 19th August, 1970 on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent inspire of a prescribed notice of demand, being the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The arrears claimed were from 1st February, 1966 at the agreed rate of R.s. 120.00 per month. The eviction petition was contested by the tenant, appellant, herein and one of the objections raise...
Lovely Benefit Chit Fund and P. Ltd. Vs. Puran Dutt Sood Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1975
Reported in: 1975RLR296
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner is M/s. Lovely Benefit Chit Fund and Finance Private Ltd. which is aggrieved by the order dt. 4-11-71 of the Additional District Judge passed in appeal against the order dt. 24-11-69 of the suborinate Judge, Delhi. Later had dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that Puran Dutt Sood the principal debtor, as well as. his two sureties Ganesh Gupta and Surinder Singh Sood has not agreed to refer any dispute arising out of the said contract to arbitration. Shri D.R. Khanna, Additional District Judge, held that Puran Dutt Sood alone was a party to the clause in the contract pertaining to arbitration but not the two sureties. The petitioner has filed a further Revision to this Court under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code contending that there was a case of failure to exercise of jurisdiction against the two sureties and that this Court must direct that the dispute comprises the sureties as they we...
Mohd. Yunis Vs. Kanhia Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi243
(1) This Judgment will dispose of four appeals. Sao 234. 235 236 and 247 all of 1969. They ha.vc been filed by the various tenants occupying the respective premises in dispute. The J-e.spondent in all the appeals is the landlord, who is the owner of the property. The appeals have been filed under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). and are directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 1st May, 1969, by which it has allowed the four applications of the landlord for fixation of standard rent and has fixed the various figures of rent for the appellants. The Additional Controller by order dated 26th August, 1968, had dismissed the said peli- lions on the ground of bar of limitation imposed by section 12 of the Act.(2) The material facts of the case are that a large property bearing House No. 412, Ward No. 9, Chitii Gate, Delhi, was an evacueeproperty and was purchased by Kanhia Lal, respondent herein, for a sum of ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bhawani Shankar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi897
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) Bhawani Shankar, who is respondent in this case, was tried for an offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was alleged to have sold, on August 22, 1969, adulterated chillies powder to Food Inspector Parkash Chopra, He was, however, acquitted by the trial Magistrate on November 21, 1971. Against the order of acquittal the present appeal was filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (2) The respondent has a grocery shop at No. 105, Samman Bazar, Bhogal. On August 22, 1969 Food Inspector Parkash Chupra purchased from the respondent after necessary formalities, 450 grams of chillies powder for purposes of analysis. On one part of the sample being delivered by the Food Inspector to Shri Prem Parkash, Public Analyst for the Delhi Municipal Corporation area, it was reported to be adulterated due to insect infestation. It was also mentioned in the report (Exhibit PE) of the Public Analyst that living inse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›