Delhi Court July 1975 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
indo Foreign Commercial Agency (Produce) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi4
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. Can equity or Promissory estoppel bar the Government from changing a scheme or Policy before the expiry of its period and if so under what circumstances This question has come up for consideration in this and the connected writ petition (No. 183 of 1974) in the background of law and facts stated below. 2. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 enables the Central Government to regulate in various ways the imports and exports of commodities into and out of India. This may be done by the issue of orders under Section 3 of the Act. Such orders may be legislative or executive. Walnut in shell and also its kernel mainly grown in Jammu and Kashmir is exported from India mainly to the Western Countries. With a view to encourage this export, a scheme was announced by the Government on 2nd February, 1973, to be effective for three Years from 1st October 1972 to 30th September, 1975. The first Paragraph of the scheme stated the decision of the Government to allow cash a...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Madan Mohan Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi43
ORDER1. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which has been recently superseded under Section 490 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India as early as on 11-2-1966 for quashing the order passed by Shri Udham Singh, Additional District Judge on 15-9-1965 in the appeal which was preferred to him by (1) Madan Mohan Khanna (2) Seth Jagat Narain and, (3) Shri C. V. Desai against the order of the Assessor and Collector fixing the annual rental value which is the rateable value of the premises in question at Rupees 2156.25 P. per month (Rs. 25,875 annually) for the year 1963-64, the same having been previously fixed, at Rs. 41,305 Per annuin by Slhri Pritam Singh on 4-5-1961 w.e.f.1-4-1960 in an earlier appeal. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 had described themselves as the Managing Landlords of the premises in question, known as Banarsi Krishna Theatre Buildings: appellant No. 3 was the managing partner of Moti Talkies, the l...
Kanwar SaIn and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi11; 1976RLR96
1. One Jawahar Devi was an old lady. She was 83 years of age. She was the owner of two houses Nos. 3755 and 3756 situated in Kucha Parma Nand, Delhi. These Properties had been let to the tenants. She was getting rental income. This was her main source of sustenance.Jawahar Devi was a widow. She was issueless. Her husband Sardari Lal died in 1939.Sardari Lal had a sister Thakurani Devi by name. She died in 1963. She had three sons and a daughter. Their names are Kanwar Sain Kapoor, Suraj Singh Kapoor and Bahadur Singh Kapoor and Bachhi Rani.2. Jawahar Devi had a sister. Her name was Rela Devi, She is dead. She had a son Naval Kishore. Jagdish Narain Tandon is the son of Naval Kishore. Jagdish Narain's son is Deepak Tandori. He is a minor.3. Deepak Tandon son of Jagdish Narain through his father made an application to the District Court under Section 272 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate or letters of administration. He said that Jawahar Devi made a will on 6th of June, 1...
Bipla Chemicals Industries Vs. Shree Keshariya Investment Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas211(Delhi); ILR1975Delhi901
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) A company known as 'Shree Keshariya Investment Limited' owns the Priyalaxmi Mills in Baroda. In March this year, and afterwards, 28 petitions were filed byvarious creditors for the winding up of this company. Notices were issued to it to show cause why each of the petitions should not be admitted. In due course appearance was entered on behalf of the company, and more 'time was obtained to file answers. On 9th May, 1975, time was extended further because Mr. K. K. Jain, counsel for the company, intimated to me orally in court that the company was trying to make arrangements to pay all the petitioning creditors. He prayed for a date to be fixed after the long vacation so as to give the company enough time for the purpose- I acceded to that request. However, on 16th July, 1975, when the petitions were again listed for further orders, it was stated on behalf of the company that it had not succeeded in raising the necessary funds to pay the creditors. Mean while, the c...
Birendar Amarjit Singh Vs. General Marketing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi15
ORDER1. The only question that this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by a defendant in the suit out of which it has arisen, raises is as to whether the document of July 23, 1971, on which the suit of the plaintiff is based, is inadmissible in evidence either because being compulsorily registrable, it is not registered or because it is insufficiently stamped.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the petition are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The premises in dispute was, during the material time held by the respondent the plaintiff in the suit, as a tenant. By an agreement of July 23, 1971, entered into between the parties, it was envisaged that the petitioner would set up in place of the premises a multi-storeyed building on the site and in consideration of the respondent delivering vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner, the petitioner would give to the respondent a flat on the ninth floor with certain specified dimensions on the t...
Sant Lal Vs. Krishan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ215; 1975RLR468
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) Krishan Lal Suri, the respondent here in, filed a suit against Sant Lal Nagrath, the petitioner herein, for recovery of Rs.1,100.00 by way of damages for alleged illegal seizure of his shooting license and his arms. The petitioner filed his written statement in the suit resisting the claim of the respondent herein. In the said written statement, the petitioner made certain allegations which according to the respondent constituted defamation. On the basis of these alleged defamatory remarks, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 500 IPC- The learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint and the statements and his witnesses passed an order under section 204 Cr, P.C. (old) on 30-3-1973 directing the issue of summons for the appearance of the petitioner in his Court on 26-4-1973. The petitioner appeared 469 before the learned Magistrate and filed an application on 26-4-1973 for quashing the proceedings against him and for discharging t...
P.N. Balasubramanian Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Delhi258; ILR1976Delhi506
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The question for consideration is whether the general rule of interpretation of statutes that a procedural enactment is presumed to be retrospective in its operation is affected by section 6 of the General Clauses Act and if so, to what extent. The statutory background of the question is as follows: (2) The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (briefly called the repeated Act or the Act of 1947) was repealed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (briefly called the repealing Act or the Act of 1973). The petitioner had entered into certain foreign exchange transaction from 1959 to the end of 1973 when the repealed Act was in force. On 31st May 1974, after the repealing Act came into force on 1st January 1974, a notice was issued by the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate to the petitioner under section 33(2) of the repealing Act asking him to furnish certain information and documents from 1959 to the date of the notice in relation to the dealings...
K.N. Kapoor Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi31
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is to quash an order passed by Shri Rajni Kant, Officer with delegated powers of the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act. 1954 (Act No. 44 of 1954) (hereinafter called as the Act), dated 4-6-1968, refusing to interfere under section 33 of the Act with the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner Shri Sudarshan Aggarwal with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 30-4-1968, taking suo mota proceedings for cancellation of sale of a bungalow in plot No. 26 N. H. Ill, Township, Faridabad as well as sale certificate dated 18-1-1963 issued in favor of the petitioner K. N. Kapoor. The facts which led to the filing of this petition may be briefly noticed. (2) One Alam Chand, whose legal representatives arc respondents Nos. 4 to 7 in this petition, purchased the said property at a public auction held on 31-12-1957 wherein he was the highest bidder in th...
Walaiti Ram Seth Vs. Krishan Kapoor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi50
ORDER1. The Petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit which he filed, for accounts against the defendant. He has in the Plaint that on, taking of accounts nearly Rs.2 lacs might be due to him. The suit was valued, for the Purpose of count-fee at Rs.200. According to Order 7, Rule I (i), C.P.C. the plaintiff had to make a statement of the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and of court-fee, so far as the case admits. The plaint, as it was originally filed, was silent on the question, of valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction. By order dated 19-1-1974 the learned Sub ordinate Judge Shri Ravi Kumar referred to the judgment of Prithvi Rai, J. in Dal Jit Singh v. Bishambar Dayal where the learned Judge had held that in a suit for dissolution of partnership and account the plaintiff has to value his suit approximately at the sum, for which he seeks the relief and that he could not fix a fanciful and whimsical valuation for purposes of court-fee and jurisd...
State Vs. Jai Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ42; 12(1976)DLT58; 1976RLR295
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) This is a reference by a Metropolitan Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), The point of law referred for the decision, of this Court is whether in a challan submitted under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code a Magistrate under Section 209 of the Code in deciding whether the offence alleged is exclusively triable by a court of Session is bound to hear the accused. (2) Section 209 of the Code which finds place in Chapter Xvi of the Code and under the heading 'commencement of proceedings before the Magistrate' is in the following terms :- 'When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall : (a) commit the case to the Court of Session; (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody dur...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »