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.
Niranjan Lal Dalmia Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi154
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) What is the legal nature of the action or inaction of theovernment in refusing or failure to pay the price of the goods supplied to it by the petitioner? What if the Government does so because it says that it has a claim for damages against the seller of the goods which is neither admitted nor has yet been adjudicated upon? Is it only a breach of contract and as such to be the subject-matter of either arbitration or suit? Or is it illegal executive action by Government which can be quashed by a writ in the nature of mandamus? This is the core of controversy in the present case. (2) The tender of the petitioner for the supply of 10,000 Nos. of tents 180 Ibs. MK-3 Vat OG. amounting to Rs. 4,30,000.00 to be supplied by November 30, 1968 was accepted by the Union of India (Respondents) on February 24, 1968. The period of delivery was extended by the respondents on certain conditions. On August 18, 1969 the respondents cancelled the contract of the petitioner alleging...
Rashid Khan Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1975
Reported in: 1975RLR463
S. Rangarajan (1) The order of Shri H.R. Nair seems to be vitiated by an error, apparent on the face of the record, because he observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the notice under section 6 was ever served on the petitioner (respondent No. 4). It seems that: Shri Nair had not scrutinised the file carefully. The necessary facts which appear from the said file have been set out above and they show that the above-said view of Shri Nair is patently erroneous. He was probably under the impression, erroneously, the actual service on the present 4th respondent (petitioner before him) had to be proved. On the other hand, what the section and the Rules contemplate is that the notice should be 'issued' and service was to be according to any one of the modes prescribed in Rule 11 in this case by ordinary post under Certificate of Posting. It is worth repeating that the Rule does not require actual service of the notice to be proved as a fact. $(8.)$ Shri Nair also committed ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi429
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) By this application, registered as a suit, under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, (herein called 'the Act') the petitioners, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (herein called'the Corporation') ever that disputes having arisen between it and the Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union (herein called 'the Union') were referred to the arbitration of the Lt. Governor, Delhi, respondent No. 2, who made his award dated 23rd May, 1970; that the Lt. Governor, Delhi, be directed to file his award or a signed copy of it and after giving notice of filing of the award, the award be made a rule of the Court and a decree be passed inaccordance therewith in its favor and against the Union. The Lt. Governor, Shri A, N. Jha, respondent No. 2, was requested to file the award. Shri S. C. Vajpeyi. Secretary to the Lt. Governor wrote letter, Exhibit C. W. I/I, to the address of the Registrar of this Court informing that there was no arbitration; that there were no regular proceed...
Mohan MeakIn Breweries Limited Vs. Union of India and Two ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi248; ILR1975Delhi151b
T.V.R. Tatachari (1) This Civil Writ Petition has come up before this Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench consisting of V. S. Deshpande and S. Rangarajan JJ., as the learned Judges, in the course of the hearing of the Writ Petition by them. considered that the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court in M]s. Air Foam llulnsn'tes {P) Ltd. New Delhi and another v. Uniun of linlia and olhers, 1974 1 DaL.120, and in Marwar Tent Factory . Union of India. 1974 RLR 218, require to be reexamined and explained by a larger Bench. Although it was not so staled expressly in the order of the Division Bench, the counsel for both the parties are agreed that the entire Writ Petition has been referred to this Full Bench for final disposal.(2) In order to appreciate the questions which arise for determination the facts which have given rise to this Writ Petition have to be stated. The petitioner. Messrs Mohan Mealdn Breweries Limited, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P), is a company registere...
State Vs. Pyare Lal Nehru
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ81; 1975RLR474
Jagitt Singh, J. (1) Pyare Lal Nehru and Satya Narain Gupta were committed to the Court of Session, on charges under sections 408, 467, 471 and 477-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and trial against them was commenced by an Additional Sessions Judge. During the trial Satya Narain Gupta died. After trying Pyare Lal Nehru be was acquitted of all the charges on August 27, 1974. From the order of acquittal an appeal was presented in this Court on behalf of State. On December 17, 1974, along with an application under section 378[3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as 'the New Code'] for the appeal being entertained. The said application was allowed on January 22, 1975 and the leave asked for was granted. (2) On March 25, 1975 Pyare Lal Nehru, the respondent in the appeal, submitted a petition for revoking the order by which leave to appeal was granted. It was stated in the petition that the application under sub-section [3] of section 378 of t...
High Court Vs. Sant Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1975
Reported in: 1975RLR349
M.S. Joshi, J. (1) These proceedings have arisen from a letter designated as a complaint and addressed by Sant Ram' to Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi in August, 1974.(2) A copy of this letter was sent by the Registry for his comments to Shri Sagar Chand Jain, Judge Small Cause Court, Delhi because of its containing certain serious allegations against him and he made a reference, while submitting his reply, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (mentioned hereinafter as 'the Act') suggesting action being taken against Sant Ram. The said reference and the impugned communication were placed before a Division Bench of this Court and the Bench ordered on llth November, 1974, on its own motion, issue of notice to Sant Ram to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.(3) The Registry issued the notice to Sant Ram in pursuance of this order and he filed a reply thereto. At the hearing the respondent urged befor us that the notice received by him was ...
Daya Shankar Kapoor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ221
ORDER WHEREAS, I. V. K. Kapoor,District Magistrate,Delhi am satisfied that with a view to preventing the person known as Shri Daya Shankar Kapoor son of late Shyam Lai, who is ordinarily a resident of 14/36, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, from smuggling goods, or dealing in smuggled goods, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said Shri Daya Shankar Kapoor be detained;Now, thereforee, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3, read with Sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, I hereby direct that the said Shri Daya Shankar Kapoor be detained.Sd/- V. K. KapoorDistrict Magistrate, Delhi.Dated the 24thSeptember, 1974.2. Subsequently, an order under Section 8 of the MISA containing the grounds of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on September 28, 1974. This order contained the following three main grounds, namely,(i) You are a bullion dealer and have been persistently active in smuggling go...
Manabendra Shah Vs. the Official Liquidator, Indian Electric Tools Cor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi594
S. Rangarajan (1) The petitioner (the Maharaja of Tehri Garhwal) had admittedly become a shareholder and director of the Indian Electrim Tools Corporation Ltd. (in liquidation), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Company)- In this petition he prays that the Official Liquidator (O.L.) may be directed not to place him on the list of contributories: he had 500 fully paid up equity shares; he has also asked for the rectification of the Register of Members of the company, which is stated to reveal that he had taken 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each in respect of which he had not paid anything, and not merely 500 equity shares, as admitted by the petitioner. Not only the facts leading to this petition are somewhat interesting but one or two questions of law of some nicety also arise for consideration.(2) On the record, as admitted by the O.L., there is only one application for shares which was given the mark 'A' initially: 'C.W. 1' has been written o...
Ram Pal Singh Vs. the Inspector General of Police, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi563
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment of Deshpande J. dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of his removal from police service and the proceedings leading thereto.(2) It is alleged that on September 21, 1964, Inspector Sardar Singh, while on patrol duty to check smuggling on the Delhi-U.P. border, found three persons one of whom was carrying a bag of wheat on a bicycle ; that on seeing the Inspector, the person who was carrying the wheat ran away leaving the wheat and the bicycle behind ; that on enquiry, his two companions told the Inspector that the afore- said wheat had been seized by the petitioner, a constable in the Delhi Police force, who was then on anti-smuggling duty, and another constable, from their companion as it was being smuggled and that the same had been sold by the petitioner and the other constable to them for Rs. 40.00 . Pursuant to the aforesaid disclosure, the...
Manorma Khanna Vs. A.R. Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi607
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a tenant's appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 3rd September, 1974. (2) These are the facts. The respondent Shri A. R. Malik is the owner of a single storey house No. E-217 situated in Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. There is one drawing room, two bed rooms, two baths, one kitchen, one store, courtyard and verandah on the ground floor of the house. There is no construction on the roof. There is of course a latrine there. (3) On 1st December, 1964 the landlord let these premises on rent to Smt. Manorma Khanna at a monthly rent of Rs. 340.00 . (4) On 6th April, 1972 the landlord made an application to the Rent Controller for permission to build on the roof under section 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (the Act). That section says : 'WHEREthe landlord proposes to make any improvement in, or construct any additional structure on, any building which has been let to a tenant and the tenant refused to allow the landlord to make...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›