Delhi Court April 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.
Tarsem Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1303
ORDERVyas Dev Misra, J.1. Tarsem Kumar has been charged with an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. He prays for ball on the short ground that the challan was put in by the police beyond a period of sixty days of his arrest and so the Magistrate should have ordered his release on bail on the sixtieth day in terms of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The petitioner was arrested on October 19, 1974, and the report under Section 173 of the Code was received by the Court on December 18. 1974, when the Court took cognizance of the offence.3. Mr. S. L. Chaudhry, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that sixty days referred to in Section 167 of the Code are to be calculated from the date of the arrest of an accused. The relevant portion of Section 167 of the Code is in the following terms:167. (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed...
Hbra Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi526
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of his claim fur Rs. 51.856/9/ by the. trial court. The respondent-Union of India was the defendant No. 1 in the trial court.(2) The plaintiff-appellant entered into a contract with the defendant-respondent for the supply of meat on terms and conditions which are embodied in the instructions to Tenders, the tender and the Acceptance of Tender. He deposited Rs. 18,000.00 as security for the performance of contract, the amount being deposited in the savings bank account, the pass book of which was delivered to the defendant respondent. The officer sanctioning the contract could rescind it if the plaintiff were to commit a breach of it and thereupon the amount of security deposit or such portion thereof as the officer sanctioning the contract should consider fit or adequate was to stand forfeited without prejudice to any other remedy that the Government might have against the plaintiff. The officer sanctioning the c...
Manekben Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi820
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This petition for Habeas Corpus lias been filed by Smt. Manekben in respect of the detention of her husband, Sukur Naran Bakhia who has been detained by virtue of an order of the Central Government passed on December 19, 1974 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 52 of 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act 52 of 1974. Before proceeding with the petition it will be advantageous to briefly set out the historical background leading to the impugned detention of Sukar Naran Bakhia. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, No. 26 of 1971. hereinafter referred to as the Misa, came in to force on July 21, 1971. In December, 1971 hostilities broke out between India and Pakistan. Consequent thereto the President made a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution on December 3,1971. It is alleged that the detenu. Sukur Naran Bakhia suffered a heart attack on September 4, 1974 and was hospitalised. Hhe ...
Nebhraj Vs. Shanti Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi733
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor, who is aggrieved by the order dated 14-1-1971 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class (Shri Shamsher Singh Kanwar), who gave an opportunity to Smt. Shanti Devi (first respondent herein) as well as to Prem Parkash (2nd respondent herein) one month's time from 14-1-1971 to make good the court fee which was payable by each of them in respect of the amounts that h^d been decreed to them separately while passing a final decree in this case on 4-10-1966. (2) A suit had been filed by both the respondents, as co-plaintiffs, in February, 1962 for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership, the court-fee payable having been nominally valued and paid in the sum of Rs. 130. A preliminary decree .was passed on 9-8-1962 The accounts were to be gone into before the passing of the final decree. The report of the Commissioner was submitted on 19-4-1966 and the final decree was passed on 4-10-1966 directing that the Judgment...
Palam Potteries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC62(Delhi)
S. Rangarajan, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who manufactures crockery goods and has been registered as a dealer for the purpose of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter called the Act), seeks to quash the order of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer (respondent No. 2) dated 16th January, 1975, deleting certain items of packing materials, namely, nails, strips, packing cases, etc., from the registration certificate, which was issued to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act (annexure P 1 is copy of the said certificate).2. It seems passing strange that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice concerning such deletion in a cyclostyled form bearing Sl. No. 532 (copy of which is annexure P 6) directing that the petitioner should appear on 16th January, 1975, at 10.30 A. M, followed by the impugned order of deletion bearing Sl. No. 533 of the same date (copy of which is anne...
S.B. Gurbax Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC300(Delhi)
ORDERS. Rangarajan, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the notice dated 25th November, 1966, (copy of which is annexure C to the petition), issued by the Sales Tax Officer, W-27, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, that the petitioner should produce the relevant documents to arrive at a correct calculation for the purpose of making a fresh assessment.2. A few facts which have led to the filing of this writ petition may alone be noticed. The petitioner, a building contractor who was registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sale Tax) Act of 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter called the Act), was assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1954-55. He filed a writ petition (Civil Writ No. 540-D of 1959) challenging the assessment; the writ petition was accepted by S.K. Kapur, J., by his order dated 29th April, 1966 (reported in S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Sales Tax Officer [1966] 18 S.T.C. 500. The contention...
Yashpal Malhotra Vs. S. Inderjit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1975
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT53
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) In this civil revision petition under section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act) which has been replaced by a later enactment, the petitioners Yashpal Malhotra s/o late Krishan Lal Malhotra (tenant) challenges the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge (Shri K.B. Andley) who accepted the appeal preferred by Inderjit Singh s/o late Bhagwan Singh (landlord) against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge IInd Class (Shri M.L. Jain) in a suit filed by the landlord against the tenant for ejectment. Since no second appeal lies against the judgment of Shri KB. Andley, the present revision petition has been filed under section 35 of the Act. Only the controversy in this civil revision petition may be noticed. (2) The suit for ejectment had been fileld by the landlord against the tenant in June 1974, the tenancy having commenced some time in 1953. The suit for eviction was based inter alias on the ground that the te...
Anuradha @ Chanchal Kumari Vs. Santosh Nath Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi246; 12(1976)DLT26
B.C .Misra, J.(1) This order will dispose of two appeals, (FAO 226/74 and Fao 17/75) both of which have been filed by the wife against two orders of Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who was trying the petition of the appellant for dissolution of marriage or judicial separation on the ground of alleged impotency and/or cruelty mentioned in sections 12 and 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 1. The material facts of the case arc that during the pendency of the petition of the wife, Mr. K. S. Sidhu. then presiding officer of the court below passed an order on 8th January, 1970 under section 24 of the Act directing the husband respondent to pay the wife maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 125.00 per month with effect from the date of the application, besides another sum of Rs. 250.00 on account of litigation expenses. This amount had been fixed with the consent of both the parties and the litigation expenses have ...
Krishan Kumar and Vs. Vimla Saigal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi238
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This litigation has been in our courts for the last 15 years or so. The landlord is claiming eviction of his tenant on the ground of personal necessity under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). So far he has had little success. There have been two rounds of litigation between the landlord and the tenant apart from the various civil and criminal cases that have been going on between them almost from the inception of the tenancy.(2) Krishan Kumar and his wife Radha Rani are the appellants. Krishan Kumar owns house No. G-33, West Nizamuddin, New Delhi. The ground floor of this house was built by him in 1957. He and the members of his family started residing in it. In 1959 he added two more floors to this house. He and the members of his family shifted themselves to the newly built first and second floors of the house. The ground floor they let to the tenant Shrimati Vimla Sehgal, respondent i...
Roshan Devi Vs. Arjan Dass Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi412
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This second appeal has been filed by the landlord under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and is directed against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 5th June, 1969 by which it has dismissed the appeal and affirming the order of the Additional Controller, finally dismissed the petition for eviction on the ground that a petition for partial eviction is not maintainable.(2) The dispute between the parties relates to a godown bearing new No. 675, Ward No. Vii, Khirki Farash Khana, behi G. B. Road, Delhi. Its measurement is said to be 10' X 20'. This godown is a part of a large property, which belonged to a Muslim lady known as Fakhar-ul-Nisa, who migrated to Pakistan in 1948 and was declared an evacuee. The property was taken over by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and eventually vested in the Central Government under the relevant provisions of law and was finally sold to the appellant before...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »