Delhi Court October 1976 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.
Hari Chand Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi129
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This and the connected writ petitions Nos. 351, 1166 and 1643 of 1973 and No. 71 of 1974 have been clubbed together because they raise common questions of fact and law relating to the validity of acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners (described in the Schedule at the end of this judgment) under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In 1961, a notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued in respect of 16,000 acres of land which included the land of the petitioners in C.W. No. 938 of 1973, a subsequent notification under section 4 was issued in 1963 in respect of 9500 acres of land which included the lands of the petitioners in Civil writ Nos. 351, 1166 and 1643 of 1973 and 71 of 1974. The notification of 1961 stated that the land covered by it was likely to be acquired for the planned development of Delhi. The notification of 1963 stated that the land covered were likely to be required for the development of the Narela township. ...
Delhi Iron and Steel Stockists Assn. Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ217Del
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.1. These are two writ petitions of two different companies engaged in the sale of iron and steel. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (the Commissioner) is the respondent in both the cases. The facts are very much similar and the points raised are the same.2. First I take up the facts of Civil Writ No. 635 of 1968. The Delhi Iron and Steel Stockists (CS) Association Private Ltd. are a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The case of the Commissioner is that the Employees' Provident Funds Act (the Act) applies to them since they are employing more than 20 persons in their establishment. The Commissioner called upon the company to appear before it and produce the relevant records. According to the Commissioner, the petitioner company did not appear on the dates fixed for this purpose. He, thereforee, passed an ex parte order.3. On February 24, 1968 (annexure 'I') the Commissioner informed the company that since they had failed to attend the inquiry t...
Brijbhushan (Deceased) Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi356
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India by a land-owner challenges the proceedings for the acquisition of the aforesaid land and seeks to quash the Notifications made under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. (2) The facts and circumstances leading to the petition may he briefly stated. In May, 1960 the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Act to the effect that land in the village of Kilokri was likely to be required for a public purpose, namely, the construction of a Fire Station pursuant to the request made by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under Section 199 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Corporation Act'. By the same Notification the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act was invoked and it was declared that by virtue of th...
M.M. Lal Vs. Sum Balbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-1976
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT365; 1977RLR62
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The question for decision in this appeal is the relationship of sub-section (4) of section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with sub-section (1) thereof. This judgment wilt also dispose of the connected S.A.O. No. 46 of 1976. (2) The premises were originally leased to the respondent tenant by Smt. Tara Lal. Lt. Col. M. M. Lal is her son. He filed a petition for eviction against the respondent. Two preliminary objections to the said petition were urged by the respondent namely, (1) that Shri Madan Mohan Lal, another son, and Miss Prema Lat, a daughter of late Mrs. Tara Lal, were co-heirs along with Lt. Col M. M. Lal and the petition for eviction could not be maintained by Lt. Col. M. M. Lal alone, and (2) that the tenant had been deprived of a servant's quarter by the landlord and was, thereforee entitled to a partial abatement of rent, that is, Rs. 75.00 per month out of the total rent of Rs. 900 per month. Initially, the Additional Rent Controller Shri P. K...
Union of India Vs. K.L. Bhalla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi82; 12(1976)DLT255
1. This first appeal from order has been filed under Section 39(1)(b) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of Mr. D. R. Khanna, then Sub Judge 1st Class, dated 29th May, 1964, by which he set aside the award of the Arbitrator dated 26th May, 1962, mainly on the ground that it had been made beyond the time allowed by the court under Section 16 of the Act and was, thereforee, void.2. The appeal came up for hearing before my learned brother, Ansari J., who by order dated 23rd August, 1972 was pleased to allow the appeal and purporting to follow the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Ganpatrai & Sons v. Ramgopal Nanda Kishore, : AIR1955Cal302 , held that the court had power under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act to extend the time to make the award even after the award had been made. Having recorded that finding the learned judge allowed the appeal. Thereafter, K. L. Bhalla, respondent in the appeal, ...
Union of India Vs. International Chemicals Corporation (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi99; ILR1976Delhi798
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) On the receipt of a tender from M/s. International Chemicals Corporation (India) (the respondents herein), an Acceptance of Tender No. CDP-2/103/52/049/28-7-73(7)/PAOD/ 1152 dated August 13, 1974 for the supply of 3,700 numbers Piperazine Adipate Container of 500 grams @ Rs. 34 per unit amounting to Rs. 1,25,800 by November 30, 1974 was issued by the Union of India (the petitioner herein). The said Acceptance of Tender was subject to the conditions of the contract contained in Form No. DGS&D-68; (Revised) including Clause 24 contained therein which is the arbitration agreement between the parties. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties to the said contract. An application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the respondents herein praying that the said arbitration agreement be filed in this Court and disputes/differences between the parties to the contract be referred to arbitration in acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›