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.
Tek Chand Madan Vs. Shyam Kamal Agencies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi348
M.S. Joshi, J.(1) The suit No. 251 of 1976, with which I am at the moment concerned was instituted by Tek Chand Madan against M/s. Shyam Kamal Agencies through its partner Shyam Kishore Tan- don on 27-2-1976 under Order xxxvii Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. l,01,938.00 . (2) The plaintiff's case as revealed by his plaint is that he is Payeecum-Holder for valuable consideration of the following Hundis which were drawn by the defendant in his favor on itself on deposit of the full amount by the plaintiff with the defendant stated in each hundi ; Seriall DateofHundis Cue date Amount 170. Rs. 1. 16-3-19-72 ....... 10-3-1973 5,000 2. 25-4-1972 ....... 19-4-1973 5,000 3. 14-5-1972 ....... 8-5-1973 5,000 4. 1-9-1972 ....... 25-8-1973 5,000 5. 11-9-1972 ....... 31-3-1973 5,000 6. 30-10-1972 ..... 31-3-1973 4,700 7. 1-7-1972 ....... 24-6-1973 10,000 8. 1-7.1972 ....... 24-6-1973 10,000 9. 6-3-1972 ........ 28-2-1973 2,000 10. 10-4-1972 ....... 4-4-1973 2,000 11. 9-3-1...
Wippermann Jr Gmbh Vs. Wipperdrive Engineering
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi389
M. S. Joshi, J. (1) Wippermann Jr Gmbh, a West Germany Company has instituted a suit (No. 471 of 1976) against Wipperdrive Engineering, a Bombay concern for damages and injunction. In that suit an application has been filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayers that (1) the respondents, its servants etc. be restrained by an interim injunction from selling or offering for sale industrial or other chains under a mark containing a cross-legged 'W' in device of a star or a mark consisting of the word Wipperdrive or any other word deceptively or confusingly similar to Wippermann, and (ii) that the respondents, its servants etc. be restrained from infringing the applicant's said marks by using any mark or marks deceptively or confusingly similar thereto. (2) It has been alleged by the applicant that it was established in 1892 and has been engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacture of chains of various kinds. Its products a...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Veena Mehta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi364; 1977RLR126
C. Misra, J.(1) This revision petition has been- filed by the defendant, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of Mr. S. R. Goel, Additional District Judge, dated 5th March, 1973, by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner for setting aside the abatement. (2) The material facts of the case are that Major Virender Singh Mehta instituted a suit against the petitioner Corporation, which was decreed, against which the petitioner filed an appeal in the court below. The plaintiff was alleged to have died on 17th December, 1971 during the Indo-Pak war. During the pendency of the appeal the counsel for the deceased plaintiff made a statement on 24th April, 1972 about the death of the plaintiff. Consequently, by order dated 26th April, 1972, the appeal was 'dismissed as abated'. The petitioner Corporation filed an application on 16th May, 1972 for setting aside the abatement and bringing on record the legal representa...
Tilak Ram Vs. Maya Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT14; 1977RLR34
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) (ORAL). This is a petition filed by the tenant against the order dated 30th July, 1976 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking permission to contest the application for leave to defend the eviction application and deeming the allegations made in the application to be correct and passing order of eviction of the petitioner under Section 14A(1) of Act 18 of 1976 in favor of the respondent and against the petitioner.(2) The respondent Maya Devi filed the application before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for an order for recovery of possession against the petitioner under section 14A(1) read with Sections 14(l)(e) and 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended.(3) In the eviction application, it was averred by the respondentlandlord that petitioner Tilak Ram was the tenant and that she is the owner of the premises. The premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purposes. It was further averred that the hus...
Shambhunath Goenka Vs. Madan Mohan Ghuwalewala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi247
M.S. Joshi, J.(1) Shambhunath Goenka and Madan Mohan were carrying on business as partners under the name and style of Sugar Trading Company at Muzaffarnagar. The partnership was started sometime in the end of 1952 and was dissolved voluntarily on 12-10-1953. On 3-10-1956 Shambhunath filed a suit for rendition of accounts and the Commercial Sub-Judge Delhi granted him a preliminary decree on 13-8-1957. The local commissioner appointed by the Court went into the accounts and reported that a sum of Rs. 42,536-9-9 was due to the plaintiff. The defendant took up cudgels against this report and it was set aside on 11-2-1966 on the request of the parties and the case was left to be decided by the Court. The suit was transferred to the High Court in 1969 and on 28-1-1971 the parties agreed to the reference of their dispute to Shri Cyan Singh Vohra, Advocate, as an arbitrator. Later on the appointment of Shri Vohra was revoked and Shri S. B. Capoor, a retired Judge of the Punjab and Haryana Hi...
Sudhir Goyal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ99; ILR1977Delhi234
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This application for bail now survives only on behalf of Sudhir Goyal and Tejinder Singh under section 439 Cr. PC.(2) It is alleged in the application that Sudhir Goyal is a student of Com. (Hons.) final year and is a convener of Samajwadi Yuvjan Sabha (Delhi University) which is a youth wing of Bharatiya Lok Dal which is an all India political party and is not a banned organisation. Tejinder Singh is also alleged to be a post-graduate student in Siri Ram College and an active member of Samajwadi Yuvajan Sabha which is a youth wing of Socialist Party which is not a banned organisation.(3) It is further stated in the application that the allegation that the petitioners are members of C.P.I. (M&L;), which is a banned organisation, is completely baseless and unfounded and has been fabricated by the police to implicate the petitioners. It is also alleged that there is no mention in the F.I.R. about their connection with any banned organisation which makes the prosecu...
Union of India Vs. Kewal Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi146
ORDER1. This is a petition for revision filed an behalf of the Union of India, under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated March 28, 1993, passed by Judge, Small, Cause Court, Delhi The petition arises in the following circumstances:2. Plaintiff-respondent, Kewal Parkash, proprietor of M/s. Kewal Parkash & Brothers, Dry Fruit Merchants & Commission Agents, filed a suit against the Union of India, owning and representing the Northern Railway, for the recovery of Rs. 994.20 on, account of damages for short delivery and goods delivered in damaged condition. It was stated in the plaint that a consignment comprising 250 cases of raisins was consigned with the Railway at Peshawar Cantt. Station for carriage 'by rail and delivery at Delhi station, under invoice No. 47, Railway Receipt No. 84871 dated 19-8-64, ex-Peshawar Cantt. to Delhi, The plaintiffs were the consignees of the railway receipt for the said goods. It was alleged that the goods we...
Sant Ram Vs. Kali Charan Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ486; ILR1977Delhi284
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) By this application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (herein called 'the Code') Sant Ram petitioner has prayed that the bail granted to the respendents Kali Charan and Vasdev by Shri Jagdish Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by his order dated 5th June, 1976, be cancelled. The respondents are accused in case F.I.R. No. 314 of 1976 undesection 302/34, Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. The allegations against the respondents as made in the challan filed by the police are as follows. Jagjit alias Soni son of Ram Chand brother of the respondents because of enmity was murdered last year by one Kishu Kumar son of Bhagat Ram. The said Kishu Kumar is standing trial for the aforesaid offence. The said case against Kishu Kumar was fixed for hearing in the Court for 20th April, 1976. Bhagat Ram and his companion with a view to saving Kishu Kumar were putting pressure on Ram Chand and his sons, including t...
Joginder Lal Sawhney and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi399; 1977LabIC1243
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) In the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held in 1975 for the preparation of a list of candidates qualified to be appointed to the Grade of Section Oificers in the Central Secretariat Service, along with Assistants who are a part of the said Service, Stenographers belonging to Grade Ii of the Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service who do not belong to the Central Secretariat Service, are also allowed to compete. This is objected to by some of the Assistants who have filed this writ petition. The attack on the decision of the Union of India (Respondent 1) taken after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (Respondent 2) to allow the Stenographers to compete at this examination along with the Assistants is based on two alternative grounds. It is firstly alleged that the scheme of the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 and the Fourth Schedule thereof is such that only the Assistants arc meant to compete at the said Limited Departme...
P.N. Karkhanis Vs. P.N. Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT22
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a revision petition on behalf of the tenant under provisio to sub-section (8) of section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 against the order dated June 4, 1976 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi rejecting her application seeking permission to contest the petition for eviction filed by the respondent against the petitioner under section 14-A read with section 14(1)(e) of the aforesaid Act. (2) The respondent Mr. P.N. Chopra, son of Mr. A.N. Chopra, filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner, Mrs. P.N. Karkhanis on the ground that the premises in suit were let out to the tenant-respondent for residential purposes are required bonafide by the respondent landlord who is the owner thereof for occupation as residence for himself and for members of his family, dependent upon him. It was further alleged that the respondent-landlord is a Chief Engineer, Metropolitan Transport Project Ministr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »