Delhi Court July 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.
Gopal Singh Hira Singh, Merchants Vs. Punjab National Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi115
ORDER1. The plaintiff, a partnership firm, sues the defendant, a nationalized bank and successor -in - interest of a banking company, for the recovery of Rs. 2,19,411/-, being the balance of the value of the goods belonging to the plaintiff which were in the possession of the defendant at the end of August, 1947 in the territories now forming part of Pakistan, on the allegations that the plaintiff opened with the Jahania office of the erstwhile Punjab National Bank Limited, a cash credit account in 1946 with a limit of Rs. 12,00,000/- and by way of security for the loan proposed to be advanced, the plaintiff pledged with the said bank stocks consisting of Kappas, cotton seeds, cotton seed cakes and cotton seed oil etc. According to the plaintiff, the cash credit agreement entered into between the parties on October 23, 1946, inter alia, provided that the goods pledged would remain in the exclusive possession and under the exclusive control of the bank-, that a margin of 20 to 30 per ce...
Amar Nath and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1975
Reported in: ILR1975Delhi684; 1975LabIC1720
H.L. Anand, J.(1) The principal question that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involves is as to the true construction and correct interpretation of sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', and the proviso to it. (2) The facts and circumstances leading to the petition arc not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The establishment of the petitioners was at one time covered by the provisions of the Act and was treated as such, by virtue of the fact that during the said period 20 or more persons were employed in the establishment so as to attract the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. It is a common case of the parties that from June, 1964 to December, 1966, the establishment employed less than 15 persons. By their letter of July 26, 1965, Annexure 'A' to the petition, the petitioners informed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, an authority under the Act, that ...
Jaimal Singh Vs. Jawla Devi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi127; 1976RLR89
Avadh Behari, J.(1) One Thakur Das aged 23, who was going an a cycle was Struck by a truck, regligently driven by Hira Singh. He fell down by the impact and died soon after. He left behind a young widow (21), a son (8 months) and a mother (70). They filed claim for Rs. 40,000.00, but were awarded Rs. 12,952.00 only. The tribunal took the view that the window is young and she may re-marry and her dependency was considered for 5 years. Both parties appealed to High Court. (After giving above facts and discussing evidence about regligence, judgment proceeds). (2) Mr. Arun Kumar on behalf of claimants has argued that award made by the Tribunal is inordinately low. He has submitted that the tribunal was in error in granting compensation to the widow only for a period of five years. The finding that there are fair chances of remarriage, he says, is without any basis. (3) The accident happened in 1955, The tribunal made the award in 1967. After the award of the tribunal another 8 years have p...
Gian Chand Dhawan and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi83
ORDER1. These two Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assail an order of the Land Acquisition. Collector declining to make a reference under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' on the ground that the applications of the petitioners seeking a reference were barred by the Provisions contained in the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act. 2. The facts leading to the two Petitions are identical although they arise out of the claim for a reference for compensation in respect of two different parcels of land. The land in dispute belonging to-the petitioners was acquired under the Provisions of the Act pursuant to which the Land Acquisition Collector mane a common Award, being No. 1928, on February 17. 1966. Apparently no notice of the aforesaid Award was sent to either of the Petitioners as required by sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. The Petitioners in both the Petitions came to know of the Award o...
Bansi Dhar Vs. Bajrang Lal Mahabir Pershad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi107; 12(1976)DLT163
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This appeal has been filed under section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act against the appellate order of Mr. H. K. S. Malik, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 8th October, 1974, by which he has dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein as barred by time. The appellant in the appeal before me is the insolvent who had been adjudicated by order dated 30th September, 1967 and a first appeal against the same was dismissed on 31st July, 1969 and a revision against the same was dismissed by this court on 27th March, 1970 and a petition for special leave to appeal has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court with the result that the adjudication has become .final. The petitioning creditor moved an application against the insolvent for directions to produce the books of account. There is some dispute as to where the account books are. The contention of the insolvent has been that they had been handed over to a private receiver appointed by the Hindustani Mercantile ...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Shiv Charan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi22
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Senior Sub-Judge Delhi dated October 29, 1969.2. The facts are these. The respondent instituted a suit against the Delhi Development Authority (the Authority) for permanent injunction. His suit was dismissed. He filed an appeal against the decree of the trial court. The appeal was heard by the Senior Sub-Judge. When the appeal was being argued the learned Senior Sub-Judge noticed that the trial Judge had not signed the depositions of two witnesses who were examined by the Authority in support of their case.3. The Authority examined in all three witnesses on March 18, 1968. One was Attar Chand. The second was R. G. Bhatnagar. The third was Kanihvee Ram. All of them were examined on one day. All the three witnesses signed their depositions. These were read over to them. The trial Judge signed at the end of the third deposition. He did not sign at the end of the first and the second depositions. It just escaped his notice. The seal of the cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›