Delhi Court March 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.
Capital Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1976
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas176(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The present application seeks an order for effectively carrying out a scheme which has already been sanctioned by this court. The background of the case may be mentioned as it has some bearing on the type of order that has to be passed. The applicant-company, M/s. Capital Chit Fund (P.) Ltd., was a company which was ordered to be wound up by this court. During the winding-up proceedings, a considerable amount was recovered from the debtors of the company and, thereforee, a scheme of arrangement was propounded by Shri J. N. Kapoor and Shri Dhall for paying off the creditors of the company. This scheme was sanctioned and now the company is working under that scheme. This is in a way an unusual situation, because the official liquidator was for a considerable period taking steps to wind up the company. The amounts which are at the disposal of the company are partly amounts which were collected by the official liquidator and partly there is an amount of Rs. 62,000 which wa...
Jagdish Lal Vs. M.E. Periera Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi12; 1976RLR382
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting question as to the extent of the power of a Court to restore possession of immoveable property to the judgment-debtor on the ex-parte decree pursuant to which the possession was delivered, being set aside. (2) This is how the question has arisen. Property No. 3509, Rashid Manzil, Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi belongs to one Jagdish Rani Sethi. N.P. Corea, respondent No. 2. herein, was a tenant in respect of a part of the second floor of the aforesaid property. M.E. Periera, respondent No. 1 herein was in occupation of a part of the said demised premises, either as a sub-tenant under N.P. Corea or as a licensee, a matter which is in controversy between the parties. N.P. Corea obtained an exparte decree against M.E. Periera from a Civil Court on the allegation that Periera was a licensee and pursuant to the decree, N.P. Corea obtained possession of the said portion and allegedly su...
Parkash Rai Vs. J.N. Dhar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi73; 12(1976)DLT321
ORDER1. The plaintiff has closed his evidence in the affirmative. Now the defendants are required to produce their evidence. At this stage, the defendants have made the present application (I. A. 396 of 1976) under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act and have appended therewith copies of the following documents:(i) Copies of 17 orders passed by the Estate Officer; (ii) Copies of affidavits of Jagdish Popli, J. M. Sehgal and K. L. Bansal; (iii) Copy of the letter dated 8th January, 1976, sent by Shri Prakash Rai to the Estate Officer intimating his change of address. (iv) Copy of the statement of K. L. Barisal made before the Estate Officer on 10th March, 1975 and concluded on 14th November, 1975. So far as the production of copies of the orders are concerned, there is no dispute. They can be undoubtedly tendered in evidence.2. As regards the affidavits, copies of such documents cannot be taken in evidence. What 'evidence' means and includes is defined in Section 3 of the Indi...
Hoshiar Singh Vs. Ram Dev and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi68; 12(1976)DLT184; ILR1976Delhi867
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the Sub-Judge, dated 30th September, 1975, by which he has set aside the ex parte decree passed in favor of the petitioner against the respondents on 10th January, 1975 and has restored the suit to its original number on payment of Rs. 100/ as costs. (2) The petitioner had instituted the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute and from demolishing the boundary wall of the land in suit. The suit was contested and the evidence of the plaintiff had been closed. Opportunity was given to the defendant-respondents to adduce their evidence and they produced only one witness, but failed to produce the remaining evidence. On 10th January, 1975 the court decided to proceed ex parte against the defendants and answered the issues on the material placed on the file by the petitioner. As a result, it decreed the suit and granted...
Tirlochan Singh Vs. Chander Badan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi149
S. Rangarajan (1) The appellant (Tirlochan Singh) has filed this appeal with the special leave of this Court against the acquittal of Chander Badan Singh (then S. I. of Police, who will hereafter be referred to as A.1) and Bishan Singh (Head Constable who will be referred to as A. 2) of the Kingsway Camp Police Station, Delhi by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Shri M. K. Chawla) of offences punishable under sections 302/201 and 201/114 Indian Penal Code . The appellant's brother Inder Singh (deceased) was running his business at shop No. 39, Mall Road, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. According to the prosecution case A.I had information that a person would be coming across the Yamuna bridge with opium and that he could be apprehended. Accordingly he posted himself there and recovered opium (said to be 800 gms.) from one Kundan Singh at about 10 a.m. on 4-4-71. Interrogation disclosed that opium had been obtained from Inder Singh (deceased) 's shop; Kundan Singh said that he would point ou...
Associated Traders and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi688
H.L. Anand, J. (1) The common question that these two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the management of M/s. Associated Traders & Engineers Pvt. Limited and Gestetner Duplicators Private Limited, raise is as to the territorial limits of the power of an appropriate Government to refer an industrial dispute to adjudication under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter to be called 'the Act'. The petitions were filed in the following circumstances : (2) Associated Traders & Engineers Pvt. Limited, the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 945/71, is a motor transport undertaking carrying on the business of goods transport service in the various parts of India- The Head Office of the Company is in Delhi with over 50 branch offices all over the country. The Company employs about 900 employees in the Head Office and the various branches. According to the Company, in the day to day administration, all the branches function independently subject...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›