Delhi Court November 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.
Assam Sillimanite Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi193; ILR1977Delhi272
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The constitationality of the Assam Sillimanite Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Refractory Plant) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the 'Act') has been challenged by the Assam Sillimanite Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, the Refractory Plant of which has been acquired by the Central Government. The only grounds of challenge argued by Shri M. C. Bhandare, learned counsel for the petitioners, relate to the construction of the Constitution and are as follows : (1) That the amount of rupees one crore seven lakhs and seventeen thousand which is made payable to the company by the Central Government under section 9 of the Act and the other amounts payable under it and section 10 of the Act is arbitrary, unreasonable and illusory thus violating Article 31(2) of the Constitution as it stands after . the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, and (2) That its constitutionality is not immune from attack in view of Article 31C because in ...
Shadi Ram Ram Sarap Dass and ors. Vs. Ravi Chander Xazigla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi187
ORDER1. This revision petition has been headed as under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. bout it is really under S. 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act 5, 1920, (here referred to as 'the Act'), against the appellate order of Mr. M. K. Chawla, Additional District judge, dated 5th Oct, 1972, by which he has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Insolvency Judge. dated 10th February, 1972, refusing to dismiss the insolvency petition Med by the creditors, respondents I and 2, against the petitioners.2. The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The creditors, who are contesting respondents before me, deposited some -amounts with the petitioners, the details of which it is not necessary to state at this stage. They had received part of the payment, but had not received the balance in spite of repeated demands. The respondents filed an application under S. 9 of the Act for adjudication of the petitioners as insolvent and claiming that the petitioners before me had committe...
Sunder Singh Vs. Om Parkash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi142; ILR1977Delhi405
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This civil revision petition has been filed by the defendant under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated 27th January, 1976 by which he has declared the respondents as paupers aad rejected the objections of the petitioner.(2) The material facts of the case are that Smt. Sham Kaur. predecessor-in-interest of the respondents instituted the suit for specific performance of contract of sale in respect of property in dispute in forma pauperis. She was allowed to sue in pauperis and the suit was registered. Smt. Sham Kaur died on 14th June, 1973 and the respondents before me were brought on record as her legal representatives. The question that was raised in the suit was whether the respondents, who were the legal representatives were paupers. On the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed : '1.Are the legal representatives of Smt. Sham Kaur, deceased, paupers? 2. In case...
Chaman Lal Vs. Mohan Lall and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi97
ORDER1. This order will dispose of civil revisions Nos. 375 and 376 of 1976 against the identical orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge dated 21st October 1975. By these orders the trial Court decided the application of Mohan Lal dated 10-4-1975 under Section 151 read with Order 22, Rule 3 and Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C.2. In these applications Mohan Lal, who was a defendant in a suit filed by Rajinder Kumar, his brother and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, his mother, had alleged that Rajinder Kumar, plaintiff, died on 10-9-1972 leaving behind Smt. Shakuntala Devi widow of Rajinder Kumar who was suspected to be the murderer of her husband but has since been acquitted of the charge of murder on 23-4-1974 and is in a position to represent her husband in the above-mentioned suit. It is further alleged in the application that Chaman Lal, his brother had made an application that he should be substituted as plaintiff in the above-mentioned case. It was also alleged that under the Hinda Success...
K.R.K. Talwar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi189; ILR1977Delhi138
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) An interesting question arising for decision in this writ petition relates to the construction of sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1958 [now corresponding to section 8(4) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971] which is as follows : 'EVERYappeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible.'The question for consideration is whether an appeal preferred against the decision of an Estate Officer can, under section 9(4), be dismissed for the default of the appellant or whether even if the appellant fails to appear when the appeal is called for hearing, the appellate officer is bound to decide the appeal on merits. (2) The petitioner Dr. K. R. K. Talwar had been allotted enG 9-6-1953 government premises at 216, Kamla Market, New Delhi. It is not clear if a lease deed signed by the petitioner and also by the authorised officer on ...
Mohd. SwallehIn and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi184; ILR1977Delhi387; 1977RLR415
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) On April 9, 1964, the respondent Union of India issued a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) in respect of the petitioners' lands situated in Malikpur Chhawani, Delhi, admeasuring 194 bighas-19 bids was comprising field Nos. 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358 and 359. On May 15, 1964, the petitioners filed objections under S. 5-A of the Act. Without hearing the petitioners on their objections the Government issued a notification under S. 5 on November 30, 1964.(2) Aggrieved by this action of the Government the petitioners brought a writ petition on January 30, 1968 (C.W. No. 123 of 1968). Their main complaint in that case was that no notification under S. 6 of the Act could be issued without hearing them on their objections as required by the mandatory provisions of S. 5-A of the Act. The Government realised its mistake. Accordingly, on December 9, 1968, the Government made an application to the court (CM 2522- J of 1968). This...
Harbhajan Singh Vs. P.N. Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT40; 1977RLR67
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated June 8. 1976 firming the order of eviction dated October 10. 1972 passed by Shri R. P. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, against the appellant-tenant under clause (e) of proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').(2) The main question which arises in the present appeal is whether the appellant was a contractual or statutory tenant at the time of termination of his tenancy by notice dated November 18, 1970 and if so whether the notice dated November IS. 1970 was valid.(3) The respondent is the owner of the premises in dispute. No. C-86, defense Colony, New Delhi, while appellant was a tenant under him in respect of the ground floor only at Rs. 600.00 per month, excluding water and electricity charges. On or about 28th January, 1971 the respondent filed a petition against the appellant claiming eviction of the appellant on ...
Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Sugarcane (Additional) Price Fixation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi259
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This and the connected writ petitions challenge the validity of orders passed by the Sugarcane (Additional) Price Fixation Authority and the orders passed by the Central Government upholding these orders. Both the sets of orders have been passed in 1969 under clause 5 and the Schedule of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. Though the writ petitions mentioned several grounds of attack, probably in view of the previous decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Sugarcane (Additional) Price Fixation Authority, : AIR1971Delhi285 , Shri Ashok Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his argument only to the ground that the said Authorities had acted contrary to law in disallowing to the petitioners the actual expenditure incurred by them on rehabilitation of plant and machinery in the sugar factories owned by the petitioners. The history of the legislation leading to the promulgation of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1...
Harbans Lal (Dead) Vs. Sales-tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi212
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) (ORAL). In the sales tax law the uucsiion whether a dissolved firm is an assessable unit and legal entity p hi:s loo often been raised. It arose under the Punjab Sales-tax Act. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate, 1966) 17 S.T.C. 326 held that a dissolved firm could not be a.ssesset! The same question nose under the Central Provinces and Brar Sales-tax Act, 1947. In Additional Tahsildar v. Gendak'.!. (1968) 21 S.T.C. 263 the Supreme Court held following Jullundur case that a dissolved firm was not an assessable unit. Recently it arose under the Bombay Sales-tax Act of 1953 and the Bombay Sales-tax Act, 1959. This time the Supreme Court in Murarilal Mahabir Prasad v. B. R. Vaid, (1976) 37 S.T.C. 77 held by a majority (Chandrachud and Sarkaria JJ., A. C. Gupta J. dissenting) that a firm on dissolution did not cease to be an assessable unit for the purpose of sales-tax. In this writ petition the question has now arisen with re...
Janki Devi and ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC268(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. 1. In the sales tax law the question whether a dissolved firm is an assessable unit and legal entity has too often been raised. It arose under the Punjab Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate : [1966]2SCR457 . held that a dissolved firm could not be assessed. The same question arose under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. In Additional Tahsildar v. Gendalal [1968] 21 S.T.C. 263 (S.C.), the Supreme Court held following Jullundur case : [1966]2SCR457 that a dissolved firm was not an assessable unit. Recently it arose under the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1953 and the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1959. This time the Supreme Court in Murarilal Mahabir Prasad v. B.R. Vad : [1976]1SCR689 held by a majority (Chandrachud and Sarkaria, JJ., A. C. Gupta, J., dissenting) that a firm on dissolution did not cease to be an assessable unit for the purpose of sales tax. In this writ petition the question has now arisen ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »