Delhi Court August 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.
NaraIn Datt Vs. Swaran Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi578
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This petition, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated 19-2-1974 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Shri H. K. S. Malik) restraining the petitioner from running a cinema pending disposal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents (other than the Delhi Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called the M.C.D.) for mandatory injunction restraining the petitioner from constructing the cinema building on the suit property situate in the revenue estate in Raj Block Navin Shahdara Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. The trial court, however, declined to grant such an injunction pending the suit. (2) There have been further affidavits and counter-affidavits filed by the parties during the pendency of this petition in this Court concerning some events subsequent to the filing of the plaint. It seems, thereforee, convenient to state the position as it emerges not only from the pleadings before the trial court (including t...
Manohar Lal Vs. Mool Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1975
Reported in: 1976(12)DLT160; 1975RentLR510
B. C. MISRA, J.( 1 ) THE second appeal under S. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as 'the Act') has been filed by the tenant against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 9th January, 1975, by which it has, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed it on merits, thereby affirming the order of the Additional Controller, dated 13th September, 1973 finally ordering eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute on the ground of bona fide personal necessity.( 2 ) . The dispute between the parties relates to one room in B 34, Inder pur. New Delhi, which was let out by the respondent landlord to the appellant on a rent of Rs. 25. 00 per month The respondent instituted a petition for eviction on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) (c) and (e) of the provision to subsection (1) of the section 14 of the Act, but the other grounds of eviction did not survive and eviction has been ordered only on the ground of personal...
S. Bhagwant Singh and anr. Vs. Jagan Nath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1975
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT150a
Avadh Behari, J.(1) These are four appeals against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated October 7, 1972. (2) First the facts. There is shop No. 89 situated at Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Sajjan Singh was the owner of the shop. He allowed Jagan Nath and his brother Tarlok Nath to use a part of the verandah outside his shop for selling their wares. This was in the year 1957. It was agreed that Jagan Nath will pay Rs. 5.50 per day for the use of a portion of the veraadah. This came to Rs. 165.00 per month. (3) Jagan Nath put a counter in a portion of the verandah. He put three almirahs. One almirah is hanging on one of the pillars of the verandah. The other almirah is on a portion of the wall. The third almirah is hanging on the common wall of shops Nos. 89 and 90. It is full length almirah up to the end of the wall. Jagan Nath is selling ladies' purses at the counter. (4) On March 6, 1962, Sajjan Singh brought a suit against Jagan Nath for recovery of licens...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi735
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a tortuous litigation. Two parties are locked in a battle. One party is the State of Rajasthan. They are trying to get a sum of Rs. 16,08,000 from two banks-Canara Bank and Dena Bank. The other party Indian Aluminium Cbles Ltd. are preventing them from getting the money. What I hve to decide is whether the State of Rajasthan should be allowed to hve this money or not. For The sake of brevity I will call the State of Rajasthan as the state. Indian Aluminium Cbles Limited will be called the Company. Canara Bank and Dena Bank will be referred to as the banks. (2) Thse are the facts. The State had a project in hand. The proiect was the building of Rana Pratap Sagar and Kota Dams. For this project they wanted a supply of 3130 KMs of 'Panther' Aluminium Conductor (ACSR) Cble. The company agreed to supply. (3) On March 31, 1964, the State placed an order with the Company for the supply of Aluminium Conductor at the rate of Rs. 3500 per Km less a rebale of ...
The Chartered Bank Vs. M.R. Balooni and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1975
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi327; (1977)IILLJ477Del; 1976RLR454
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This writ petition by the Bank challenges the validity of the award of respondent 2 (Labour Court, Delhi) holding 'that respondent 1, a clerk in the Bank. is entitled to special allowance under the Bipartite Settlement of October 19. 1966 between several banks and their workmen. Two contentions are raised one preliminary and the other on merits. The preliminary objection is that the Labour Court, Delhi has no original jurisdiction to entertain directly an application by a workman under section 33C(2) of the. Industrial Disputes Act for the determination of his claim to special allowance. Such original Jurisdiction, it is said is confined to section 33A. The language of section 33C is contrasted with section 33A. Sub-section (1) of section 33C expressly requires an application to the appropriate Government. It was further argued that even if it is assumed that the Labour Court had the Jurisdiction to entertain the application of the Respondent I under section 33C(...
Kumkum Khanna and ors. Vs. the Mother Acquinas and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi35; ILR1976Delhi31
V.S. Deshpande (1) Is a writ petition maintainable against the Principal of a private college recognised by the University of Delhi in accordance with the Delhi University Act, 1922 and the Statutes and Ordinances framed there under Is the Principal of such a college bound to grant an opportunity to a student to show cause why she should not be prevented from appearing at her examination on the ground of shortage of the required attendance before debarring her from such examination on such a ground In exercising a statutory discretion to exclude periods of serious illness etc. in calculating the attendance of a student, is the Principal justified in being guided by her own administrative policy These questions arise in this and the connected writ petitions (Civil Writs 411, 465 to 470, 478 and 568 of 1975) in the following context.(2) The University of Delhi is established as a teaching and affiliating University by the Delhi University Act, 1922. Section 2(a) of the Act defines a 'col...
Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. Kulwant Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi141; 12(1976)DLT135; 1975RLR514
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This is a husband's appeal against the order of the subordinate judge, first class, dated January 10,1972. (2) The husband Mohinder Pal Singh is serving in the Army. He is a lieutenant colonel. The wife Kulwant Kaur is a lecturer in Government Girls' College, Chandigarh. She is well educated. She is an M.A. in more subjects than one. She has foreign qualifications. She studied at the London University for three years. Today the husband is 46. The wife is 45 years of age. There is no child of the marriage. (3) The husband and wife were married on December 25, 1953. The husband at that time was a captain. He was stationed at the Red Fort, Delhi. The wife's father had a guest house at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The husband used to come and stay with the wife at Karol Bagh during his off-time. Till September 1954 it may be said that they lived together. (4) In September, 1954, the husband left for Indo-China. The wife did not want him to leave India. But the husband was kee...
Jagdish Rai and ors. Vs. Sant Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi147
ORDER1. This is a revision petition against the order of the subordinate Judge dated April 16, 1975.2.The plaintiff brought a suit for possession and recovery of damages. The defendant raised the plea that the suit is not properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. An issue was framed. The learned subordinate Judge refused to try this issue as a preliminary issue. The defendant has come in revision. 3. When an objection as to court-fee is raised the Court should decide that objection first before proceeding to dispose of the suit on any other ground. If the matter requires investigation it should record the evidence of the (parties bearing on the point and if it finds that the court-fee paid is insufficient should stay further proceedings in the suit and call upon the plaintiff to make good the deficiency within a specified time (See Walaiti Ram v. Gopiram, Air 1935 Lah 75. It is improper for the Court to hold up the decision on the question of court-fees until the end ...
L.R. Chawla Vs. Murari, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ212; 1975RLR471
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Mahesh Dass, Roshan Lal, Gopal Dass and Munshi Ram have been challenged under Section 147. 14, 149, 342, 307 and 302, Indian Penal Code by police-station Tilak Nagar for causing the death of Bodh Raj Chawla and causing injuries to Sham Sunder. It is alleged that at about 8 p.m. on October 7,1974 Bodh Raj Chawla and Sham Sunder were passing in front of house No. Wz 283 Vishnu Garden when they were surrounded by Raj Kishore, Roshan, Gopal Dass, Murari and Yawan Parkash Gupta. They started shouting that the two should be finished and started giving them lathi blows and forced them inside house No. Wz 283. Bodh Raj fell down and was dragged. When Sham Sunder started shouting for help he was threatened with a knife. Munshi Ram, who was sitting inside the room, had also given them a beating. Ram Partap, who had witnessed the incident, went to the police station and lodged the report. The injured were removed to the hospital where Bodh Raj succumbed to his injuries on Octobe...
Margaret George Chandamamnil Vs. Chandamannil Mananman George
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Delhi190; 12(1976)DLT116; 1976RLR504
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This first appeal has been filed by the wife against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated 5th January, 1973, by which he dismissed the petition of the wife for grant of a decree for judicial separation. (2) The parties are Christians who were married according to Christian rites on 29th October, 1967 and the petition giving rise to this appeal was filed on 17th July, 1971. The wife is educated and is employed as Physical Instructor in Lady Sri Ram College, Delhi on a salary of about Rs. 1100.00 per month, while the respondent husband in Tata Institute and had been getting a salary of Rs. 500.00 per month previously and on the date of evidence was getting Rs. 1150.00 besides other expenses. They have got two children ; one born on 1st August, 1968 'and the other on 20th April, 1971. (3) The appellant wife filed the petition for judicial separation in July, 1971. The petition was subsequently amended on 9th August. 1971 and the material allegations after st...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »