Delhi Court March 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.
Heemanshu Traders Vs. Delhi Electricals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi653; 1976RLR225
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) This order will dispose of C. Ms. 710/74, 830/74and 38/75 and 150/75 in Fao (OS) 42/74. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in a patent action transferred to the High Court under proviso to Section 29 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The judgment was announced on July 22, 1974. After taking into account the time spent in obtaining certified copies, the last date of limitation for filing this appeal was September 24, 1974. The appeal was filed a day earlier i.e. on September 23, 1974. The decree-sheet bore a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2.75 only as against the requisite fee of Rs. 5.25. The office made an endorsement that the decree-sheet was not properly stamped. Papers were collected by the learned counsel for the appellant on September 28, 1974 and the appeal was re-filed on October 4, 1974, but inadvertently the deficient court-fee was affixed not on the decree-sheet but on the certified copy of the judgm...
Bhalla Vs. R.N. Aggarwal, District Judge, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi359
Prakash Narain, J.(1) A municipal election took place in 1971 for election of Councillors to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 7 filed nomination papers for alectioa as Councillors for Ward No, 87, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.The nomination papers had to be filed by April 5, 1971, the scrutiny thereof was to take place on April 7, 1971, the last date for withdrawal of nominations was April 12, 1971, the last date on which the poll was to be taken for election to the Corporation was May 2, 1971 and the date before which election was to be completed was May 20, 1971, according to a Notification No. 1 (1)71-IM.Cor( III) published in the official Gazette on March 29, 1971, so notified by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, under Rule 11 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The nomination papers filed by the petitioner and respondents 2 to 7 were accepted on scrutiny....
Ashoka Marketing Limited Vs. B.D. Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi659; 1975LabIC1715; 1976RLR217
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The interesting question for consideration is whether the orders 'dismissed as withdrawn' passed on an application made under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on an application made under section 19(2) of the slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereafter called 'Slums Act' in short) barred a subsequent application on the same cause of action. (2) Respondent 2 workman R. K. Sharma had made an application to the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which was dismissed for default on November 11, 1970. He made an application for setting aside the said dismissal for default but did not pursue the said application. A second application on the same cause of action was made by him on January 4, 1971. The employer contested the application and the case was fixed for evidence of parties on April 27, 1971. Instead of leading evidence, the workman stated before the Labour Court that he wanted to withdraw his...
Gian Singh Vs. Tarlok Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi215; 1975RLR340
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This is a tenant's appeal against the order of the rent control tribunal dated January 13, 1972.(2) The appellant Gjan Singh is a tenant of house No. 40-4J/4921 Mtliulcd in Raigarpura, Karol Bagh. New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 20.00 . In this house he has one room. kitchen, varandah and common bath, latrine and a court yard in his occupation. The respondent Tarlok Singh is the landlord. He purchased this property on March 30. 196S. The appellant is a tenant since the days of the previous ovner. On March 30, 1968, he attorney to the res- pondent.(3) On May 23, 1969, the landlord filed a petition for the tenantejectment. Ejectment was sought on clause (h) of the proviso lo S. 14 (U of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Act'). That Clause reads: '(H)that the tenant has. whether before or after tile cummencemeni of this Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence.'(4) The landlord's case was that on February 6. 1966, the tciiani was...
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi and Two ors. V ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi21; 1976LabIC806; 1976RLR150
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by (1) The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, (2) 'The Accountant General, Commerce, Works and Miscellaneous, and (3) The Deputy Accountant General (Admn.) against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. Shri H. L. Anand J., dated April 7, 1975, in Civil Writ Petition No. 904 of 1974, whereby the learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed an order, dated April 29, 1974, issued by the Deputy Accountant Genral (Admn.) terminating the services of the respondent herein, Shri Samar Singh.(2) Shri Samar Singh, the respondent herein, filed the aforesaid Writ Petition in the following circumstances. He was appointed as an Auditor in the Office of the Deputy Director of Audit and Accouts, Posts andd Telegraphs, Jaipur, with effect form August 19, 1970. He worked in that post till December 31, 1970, when he resigned from that post. He was, however, appointed as an Auditor in the Office of the Accounta...
Director of Enforcement Vs. Ravinder Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi335
M.S. Joshi, J.(1) The facts of the case as revealed by the prosecution succinctly stated are that Ravinder Aggarwal was present outside the Central Telegraph Office Building, Eastern Court, New Delhi on 12-9-1966. Shri K. L. Thukral, Enforcement Officer of the Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, apprehended him and searched his person. The search yielded United States currency notes of various denominations amounting to 1080 dollars. Shri Thukral prepared a Panchnama (Ex. PWI/A) evidencing this recovery and it was attested apart from Shri K. Vijayan, Chief Enforcement Officer, by Gurmej Singh and R. R. Sharma. The Panchnama was signed by Ravinder Aggarwal as well and a copy thereof was given to him. Ravinder Aggarwal then accompanied the officers of the Enforcement Directorate to their office situated nearby and there he was interrogated by Shri Vijayan. In reply to the questions put to him he made a detailed statement in his own handwriting (Exhibit PW1/B) intimating how ...
Subhag Singh Gurcharan Singh Vs. the Sales Tax Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi7b; [1976]37STC49(Delhi)
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) These are two Letters Patent Appeals and nine Civil Writ Petitions. Some Writ Petitions in which similar points arose for determination were dismissed by Dalip Kapur J. on September 27, 1972, the main judgment being in Civil Writ Petition No. 1324 of 1969. The two Letters Patent Appeals mentioned above, namely, L. P. As Nos. 274 and 275 of 1972, have been filed against the said judgment in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1289 and 1324 of 1969, respectively. The nine Writ Petitions mentioned above, namely. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 431 to 433 and 1435 of 1973, and Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 803, 809, 849, 850 and 891 of 1974, involve similar points and, thereforee, the said Writ Petitions and the two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 274 and 275 of 1972 have been heard together by us.(2) The petitioners in the two Writ Petitions, out of which the two Letters Patent Appeals have arisen, and in all the other nine Writ Petitions (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioners'), a...
Khemraj Shrikrishandas Vs. Garg and Co. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi130; ILR1975Delhi251
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This first appeal from order has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order of Mr. P. L. Singia, Additional District Judge, dated 18th December, 1973 by which the learned Judge has refused the application of the plaintiffs for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from printing, publishing or selling, etc. deceptively similar or colourable imitation of the plaintiffs Panchang (Almanac) in dispute.(2) The facts of the case leading to the dispute are that the plaintiffs have been printing and publishing the Panchang (Almanac) since 1894 A.D. year after year, according to the Vikram Sainvat up to now. The Panchang bears the name of ''Pt. Shrivallabh Maniram Panchang' and has a distinctive colour style and title. It is common case of the parties that this Panchang was being com- piled by a reputed astrologer by name Pandit Mani Ram Sharma, (who is the grandfather of Nand Kishore, second defendant). The preface of the Panchang also supports the ver...
Prem NaraIn Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1918
ORDERR.N. Aggarwal, J.1. On the complaint of Prem Narain, the petitioner herein, one Om Parkash Malhotra was tried on the charges under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, The case was tried by Sh. Muni Lal Jain, Special Judge, The Special Judge found Om Parkash Malhotra guilty of the offences charged with and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment.2. While disposing of the case the Special Judge was of the view that Prem Narain had made intentionally false statement and to eradicate the evil of perjury and in the interests of justice it is expedient that Prem Narain be prosecuted for the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly issued notice to him to show-cause why a complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code be not filed against him. The Special Judge was not satisfied with the Explanationn offered by Prem Narain and by an order dated 25th January 1973 ord...
Shama Banu and ors. Vs. Jagadish Parshad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi164
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated January, 14, 1974.2. The facts are these. On October 18, 1960, Jagdish Parshad and Rajinder Kumar, landlords owners, filed an application against one Gul Mohd for his eviction from a part of the property bearing No. 1485, Gali Chuleh Wali, Sadar Bazar. Delhi Gul Mohd was a tenant under them on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/-. The sole ground of eviction was clause (9) to the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 ('the Act') which is in these terms:'that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated;'3. The tenant contested the claim. The rent controller dismissed the petition on September 4, 1961. The landlords went in appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »