Delhi Court April 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.
Mohinder Singh Dhamrait Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT272
M.S. Joshi, J.(1) Mohinder Singh Dhamrait, a contractor, executed the work of providing certain roads and paths with bitumen surface for the Union of India. The agreement under which this work was accounted stipulated that all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions mentioned in it and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right matter or thing whatsoever, in any was arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications estimates instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. in charge of the work at the time of dispute or if there is no Chief Engineer, the Administrative He...
Parbhat Singh Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT259; 1976LabIC1708
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) The question to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner, Parbhat Singh, is a, 'worker' as defined in the Factories Act 1948. It has arisen in a somewhat devious way. For over two decades the petitioner has been employed by Indian Oxygen Limited who manufacture oxygen and acetylene gases. He started as a, labourer ('mazdoor') in the factory of the company at Delhi.' On 1st October 1953, he was promoted and became a 'booking sircar'. He has been working as such ever since. In a letter written by the company the duties of booking sircars have been described as follows: 'THEYcome in the morning to take cash from the cashier and to give accounts of the previous day's work. After this they go out to the Railway Station and Goods Transport Companies, where they book full cylinders to outstations and also arrange to collect empty cylinders received from outstations.' (2) In 1952, a scheme known as the Government of India Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial ...
Daya Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and Sons and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1976
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT305; 1976RLR539
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The material facts in the appeal are that the respondents are tenant in respect of a shop in Connaught Place on a rent of Rs. 90.53 per month. On 17th November, 1963 the appellant landlord served a notice on the respondents requiring them to pay arrears of rent for the period from September, 1962 to October, 1963. It is the admitted case of the parties that the said notice had not been complied with within the period of two months as required by clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 therein referred to as the Act nor has the same been paid even by now.(2) On 8th April, 1969 the appellant landlord filed the petition for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and unlawful subletting, the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. Since the eviction has been sought on the ground mentioned in clause (a) the controller was required by section 15 o...
The Official Liquidator of R. C. Abrol and Company (P) Ltd. Vs. R.C. A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1976
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas537(Delhi); ILR1976Delhi283
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) The Official Liquidator acting as Liquidator of M/s. R. C. Abrol & Co. (P) Ltd., in liquidation, has instituted a criminal complaint under Sections 538 and 541 of the Companies Act, 1956, on account of the failure of the accused persons to hand over the books of account and records of the company and also, on account of their failure to keep proper books of account duripg the two years immediately preceding the winding up of the company. There are eight accused in the case of whom, Shri R. C. Abrol, accused No. 1 is stated to be the ex-Managing Director, accused Nos. 2 to 4 are stated to be directors and accused Nos. 5 to 8 are stated to be Accounts Officer, Sales Officer and Administrative Officers of the company. This Court had ordered summons to issue on this complaint on 19. (2) On 22nd September, 1975, I expressed some doubt as to whether this Court had Original Criminal jurisdiction to entertain the criminal complaint as it was not a Court of Original Criminal ...
The Management of Indian Compressors Makers Corporation Vs. D.D. Gupta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1976
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT243; 1977LabIC694
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against respondent No. 2 who was admittedly a workman; he was working as a turner in the electric motor department of the petitioner which was claimed to have been closed down, it being averred that the respondent No. 2 along with three others was working in the department which was closed down. The greater part of the award of the Labour Court (Shri D. D. Gupta) was concerned with the question of closure; there is very little discussion on the other question, which alone has been argued before me by Dr. Anand Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, concerning whether the workman had been paid retrenchment compensation as per section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which will be hereinafter called the Act.(2) It is needless to be concerned about the other three workers who were employed in this department; reportedly the matter has been sett...
Krishan Murari Lal Kapur Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Cour ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi277
H.L. Anand, J. (1) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a workman, employed by respondent No. 2, the Managament of Zodiac Press, Nicholson Road, Delhi, challenges an award of the Additional Labour Court, Delhi, setting aside the termination of services of the petitioner but refusing the relief of reinstatement and instead awarding compensation on the ground that having regard to the age and state of health of the petitioner, the state of relations between the parties and the nature of the work required; of the petitioner, the interest of justice will be served by the award of compensation.(2) The facts and circumstances leading to the petition are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The petitioner was employed by the management in August 1967 as a Proof Reader when he was around 50 years of age. The services of the petitioner were terminated by an order of termination dated November 6, 1968 (Ex. M-1) on the ground that the peti...
Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited Vs. the Punjab Exchange L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi22
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Company Appeals Nos. 26 and 27 of 1975. Both the appeals are directed against separate orders made on 19th December, 1975, by the learned Company Judge. The order against which Company Appeal No. 27 of 1975 is directed was passed first and by it the learned Company Judge, finding that a prima facie case had been made out. admitted to hearing the petition for winding up the company and directed that the citation may be issued in the Indian Express, Urdu Milap and the Official Gazette. (2) By the second order made on 19th of December, 1975 against which Company Appeal No. 26 of 1975 has been filed the learned Company Judge disposed of the application preferred under section 450 of the Companies Act and appointed a provisional liquidator. Both the appeals were heard together. After the judgment had been reserved Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 239 of 1976 was moved in Company Appeal No. 27 of 1975 with the prayer that the appellan...
Delhi Cloth and Genral Co. Mills Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi28; [1976]38STC403(Delhi)
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.(1) These are four Civil Writ Petitions and three Sales Tax References. As a common contention has been raised in all the seven matters, they have been heard together. The contention is that the turnover of the sales effected by the petitioners in the canteens run by them is not liable to be included in the taxable turnover for the purposes of levy of sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi with effect from 28th May, 1951, and as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act). (2) We shall first state the facts which led up to the filling of Civil Writ Petition No. 214 of 1968 and the making of Sales Tax Reference No. I of 1972. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 214 of 1968 and Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1972 is the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Limited which is a public Limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, and has its Registered Offi...
M/S. the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., Having Its Registered ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)239
T. V. R. Tatachari, C.J. - These are four Civil Writ Petitions and three Sales Tax References. As a common contention has been raised in all the seven matters, they have been heard together. The contention is that the turnover of the sales effected by the petitioners in the canteens run by them is not liable to be included in the taxable turnover for the purposes of levy of sales tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi with effect from 28th May, 1951, and as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act.).2. We shall first state the facts which led to the filling of Civil Writ Petition No. 214 of 1968 and the making of Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1972. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition 214 of 1968 and Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1972 is the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Limited which is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, and has its Registered Offices at ...
inder Chand Nayyar Vs. Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi34; 1976RLR443
1. This first appeal from order has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 39 of 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it is directed against the order of Mr. C. G. Suri, District Judge, Delhi, dated 20th January, 1969, by which he has granted a probate of the will (Ex. P-1) to the first respondent Sarvadeshik Arya Priti Nidhi Sabha. The second respondent is the State, which is not represented before me.2. The material facts of the case are that Chander Wati, deceased owned a property bearing No. XVII/1550: Plot No. 3W/12, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. She executed a will dated 27th April, 1967 (Ex. P-1), which was not registered, but was attested by three witnesses. She died at Delhi on 30th August, 1967. The contesting respondent applied for grant of a probate to the said will. On, issue of- a notice, the appellant' before me raised objections. He disputed the execution of the will and the sound disposing mind of the testator. He also contended that the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »