Delhi Court May 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.
Rawal Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Duke Enterprise
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1975
Reported in: 1975RLR440
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) This is plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and S. 151, Civil Procedure Code ., for grant of temporary injunction against defendants from using the offending trading style Duke Enterprises and the trade mark Duke in respect of insulated automobile cables and other automobile parts. (2) The plaintiffs are a private limited company manufacturing and marketing automobile parts under the trade mark 'Duke'. They are stated to be registered proprietors of (Details of registration of oil Seal and rubber bushes is then given). (3) According to them, they have been continuously for the last nine years prior to the filing of the suit, manufacturing, selling and offering for sale automobile parts of various kinds and types under the trade mark DUKE. They allege that their sale of such automobile parts was 10 to 11 lakhs of rupees per year and that for the last nine years their safe had been about 55 lakhs of rupees They had effected sale of their Duke brand au...
M/S. Bhagat Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S. Ego Metal Works Priva ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)57
ORDERRangarajan, J. - This is an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend C.P. 70 of 1972, which is a petition for winding up. Rules, 6 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) which has not been specifically mentioned in the application has nonetheless to be considered.2. A few facts leading to this application to amend the winding up petition have to be stated. The applicant is M/s. Bhagat Industrial Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called the petitioning Company) which has sought as a creditor of M/s. Ego Metal Works Private Ltd. (hereinafter called the respondent Company) to wind it up. According to the winding up petition (C.P. 70 of 1972) the following two sums are due from the respondent company to the petitioning company. It was stated in paragraph 6 of the winding up petition that a sum of Rs. 49,600/- had been deposited with the respondent company on 1-8-1969 as per receipt No. 279. The same was renewed, the ...
Sant Ram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi90
ORDER1. This judgment will also dispose of writ Petitions 1036 to 1038 of 1967. 2. It is sufficient to state the facts in C. W. 1034 of 1967. The Petitioner (Sant Ram) as well as the other Petitioners in the connected Petitions claim to be occupants of five shops bearing municipal number 1/1147-51, situated on G. T. Road, Shahdara which originally belonged to a Muslim owner Fazil Jamil. Fazil Jamil had leased the said property to Respondents 4 and 5 (Harkishan Lal Malhotra and Krishan Gopal Malhotra) by means of lease deed dated 8-3-1948 with effect from 5-12-1947 for a period of five Years i. E., until 5-12-1952. After Fazil Jamil migrated to Pakistan the property was notified as evacuee property and Respondents 4 and 5 and applied for confirmation a the lease to them by the Muslim owner. They had sub-leased the shop No. 1/1147 to Parma Nand Talwar, shop No. 1/1149 to Puran Chand, shop No. 1/1150 to Kishan Singh, shop No. 1/ 1147-A to Sant Ram and shop No. 1/1148 to Harbans Lal. 3. Th...
Brahmakuriprakash Mani and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1975
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi478; 1975RLR431
Yogeshwar Dayal (1) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated April 23, 1970, dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellants for quashing the Notification, dated 23rd November, 1965, published in Delhi Gazette, dated 2nd December, 1965, issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).(2) It was urged in the writ petition, which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution that Brahma Kumari Ishwariya Vishwa Vidhyalaya (petitioner No. 2) is a religious institution commanding a very large following and having its principal office at Mt. Abu and its centres all over the country including 12 centres in Delhi, where religious instructions are imparted. It is alleged that in Delhi there is a centre at Kamlanagar and also at Rajouri Garden, besides others which are regularly visited by a large number of persons. Petitioner No. 1, Brahma Kumari Pr...
Pushpa Rani Vs. Anokha Singh Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1975
Reported in: 1976RLR52
B.C. Misra, J.(1) Appellant I's husband on 1-7-63 at 10.45 p.m. was driving his m/cycle on S. Patel Road. A truck, whose driver was Respdt. 1 and owner Respdt. 2, was standing on the road as its axle had broken. Though its front left wheel was on Kacha path its near portion blocked most of the left half of the road. The deceased was carrying 2 children. M/Cycle dashed against the truck and all the 3 died. Claim was filed u/s 110 of M.V. Act. Tribunal held that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and wag entitled to 1/3rd of the damages. Appellants appealed to High Court.]. Para 7 onwards, Judgment is : (2) The question that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the court below that the deceased contributed to the neglience is correct. The Tribunal has repelled the contention of the respondents before me that the deceased was drunk at the time of accident. The Tribunal has found that there was not an iota of evidence on the record before it to support this conten...
F.R. Jesuratnam Vs. Chief of Air Staff and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ65; ILR1975Delhi330
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The question which has been referred to this Division Bench by one of us (V. D. Misra, J.) is 'whether a person undergoing imprisonment after being convicted under the Air Force Act- 1950, can be allowed to set off the period of pre-trial detention against the sentence of imprisonment ?'(2) F.R. Jesuratnam (the petitioner), who was a Squadroni Leader, was placed under close arrest under the Air Force Act, 1950 (herein after called the Act) on 9-11-1974. He was tried by a General Court Martial which sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment on 4-3-1975. The sentence was duly confirmed under section 152 of the Act by the Chief of Air Staff on 8-4-19 75. The petitioner was thereafter sent to Tihar Jail for serving the sentence awarded to him.(3) According to section 164 of the Act, the 'sentence shall, whether it has been revised or not, be reckone d to commence on the day on which the original proceedings were signed by the presiding officer'. The sentence a...
Mangal Singh Vs. Tek Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi267; ILR1976Delhi684
Avadh Behari, J.(1) These arc three appeals against the order of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge Delhi dated June 5, 1968. This judgment will govern them all. (2) The facts arc these. The plaintiffs who are now the respondents in the appeal brought three suits for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of a part of Khasra No. 645/581 situated in Chandrawal Jaidid near Delhi. It was alleged that the defendants who arc the appellants now had constructed mud huts on the part of the khasra belonging to the plaintiffs. It was further alleged that the possession of the defendants commenced in 1949 and they agreed to pay rent. (3) In all the three suits the plaintiffs are the same The defendants are different persons. Mangal Singh alias Mangtu is the defendant in one suit. Nanua and Naurang are the defendants in the second suit. Harphool and Jaidev arc the defendants in the third suit. (4) The plaintiffs alleged that Mangal Singh h...
G.S. Atwal and Co. (Gua) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi150; 1978RLR396a
ORDER1. This petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, has been registered as a suit. On the application, the arbitrator filed his award and the proceedings; the arbitrator being Shri Suresh Chander, Deputy Chief Engineer (Planning). Northern Railway. The petitioner filed objections thereto which have been numbered as I. A. No. 2067 of 1974. They are under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent Union of India, filed a reply and thereafter a replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following would were framed :-'1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside for the reasons state in the application ? 2. Relief.' The parties were directed to file affidavits as it was thought that the case could be decided without any oral evidence. The affidavits and counter-affidavits are on record and the arbitration proceedings are also before me.2. The case of the objector is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner had submitted a tender for ...
National Industrial Development Corporation Vs. K.R. Jhumb
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1975
Reported in: 1976LabIC210; 1975RLR498
S. Rangarajan (1) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi refusing to hold, as contended by the defendant/petitioner, that the suit by the plaintiff/respondent was not maintainable; as the issue (1) reads 'in its present from'. The brief facts which alone are sufficient for the disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiff had been working for about ten years prior to the suit, as Assistant in the National Development Corporation, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. 1956. Though it is stated that the Government owns all the shares of the said Company the provisions of the Companies Act alone would apply, subject to such regulations as the Company might have framed in the matter of the service conditions of its employee. (2) What led to the filing of the present suit, out of which this revision petition arises, was the issue of an office memo dated 2.1.1972 on the basis of an earlier m...
Chuni Lal Manga Vs. Mangat Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi383; 1976RLR196
S. Rangaran, J. (1) The plaintiff/petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his suit by the learned Commercial Sub- Judge (Mrs Santosh Duggal) to review which an application was also made; a notice of the same was ordered by Mrs. Santosh Duggal herself, but the application for review was subsequently dismissed by Shri P. K. Bahri, her successor. (2) The suit was laid by the plaintiff/petitioner, Director of a company registered under the Companies Act of 1956, against the defendant (Mangat Ram alias Mangtu) in respect of a borrowing in the sum of Rs. 4550.00 (originally wrongly mentioned in the plaint as Rs. 4500.00 but since corrected) in respect of which a hundi was said to have been executed on the same date, namely, 17th March, 1966, for a period of 180 days commencing 17th March, 1966 and expiring on the 12th September, 1966. The hundi was presented for payment through a Notary (P.W. 2), who was examined only in part and the defendant refused to pay the amount due. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »