Delhi Court April 1976 Judgments

M. Nazir Ahmed and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1976Delhi240; 1977LabIC688

H.L. Anand, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of C.W. 192. of 1972 and C.W. 941 of 1972, by two groups of Upper Division Clerks working in the Armed Forces Headquarters, which raise two common questions, viz.: (a) whether on absorption in the Armed Forces Headquarters between 1951 to 1958 as Lower Division Clerks on transfer from office and formations subordinate to the Ministry of defense their seniority should have been determined on the basis of length of service in the grade in the Afhq or in an equivalent grade outside the Afhq rather than on the date of confirmation in that grade, (b) If the first question is answered in favor of the petitioners, whether there has been such delay in raising the matter which disentitles to them to relief.(2) Between 1951 58, the several petitioners were absorbed as Lower Division Clerks in the A.F.H.Q. on transfer from offices and formations subordinate to the Ministry of defense. When the petitioners were transferred to the Armed Forces Headquart...

Murli Dhar Dalmia Vs. Union of India Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1976Delhi311

Prithvi Raj, J. (1) The petitioner, Murli Dhar Dalmia, in the Criminal Writ No. 15 of 1976 filed by him under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482, Cr. P.O., 1973, against the Union of India and others asks for quashing the orders of detention dated 30th November, 1975, made by the District Magistrate, Bhiwani (Haryana State), respondent No. 5 under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (herein called 'the Act') and the declaration dated 14th December, 1975, Annexure A, made by the Governor of Haryana in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of section 16A of the Act and the order (proclamation) dated 16th January, 1976, Annexure 'F' made by respondent No. 2 (Shri R. N. Jindal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi), published on 24th January, 1976. He further prays that a direction be issued to respondent No. 2 to forbear and desist from taking any further steps or proceedings in pursuance of the said order dated 16th Jan...

Abdul Hamid and anr. Vs. Nur Mohd

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1976Delhi328; ILR1976Delhi250; 1976RLR514

S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The first appellant is the tenant and the second appellant is his younger brother. The respondent had filed an eviction petition on 6-10-1970 under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds of: (A)subletting or parting with possession by first appellant to second appellant [S. 14(1)(b)]; (B)non-living by the tenant or any other member of his family in the premises let out [S. 14(1)(d)]; (C)personal need [S. 14(1)(e)] ; and (D)the tenant having acquired other accommodation [S. 14(1)(h)].EVICTIONhaving been ordered on the grounds enumerated under section 14(1)(b), (d) .and (e) and an appeal against the same also having been dismissed this second appeal has been preferred.(2) Since interference is possible under section 39 of the Act only if there is any substantial question of law arising in the appellant's favor the arguments proceeded only on the basis of the findings of the courts below. It may be sufficient,...

Bans Raj Vs. State, Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1976Delhi214

V.D. Misra (1) This revision is directed against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') while reducing the sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000 to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.(2) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on September 23, 1972 Food Inspector J. S. Chadha went to shop No. B-1242, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. This shop is owned by one Chaman Lal who sells spices in sealed packets. The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity, bought 450 grams each of turmeric (haldi) and chillies powder, and divided them into three equal parts according to the rules. Separate memos in respect of both the articles of food were prepared. When the samples were sent to the Public Analyst both were found adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst shows that turmeric was foun...

Hans Raj Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1977CriLJ92

ORDERVyas Dev Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while reducing the sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on September 23, 1972 Food Inspector J.S. Chadha went to shop No. B-1242, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. This shop is owned by one Chaman Lal who sells spices in sealed packets. The Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity, bought 450 grams each of turmeric (haldi) and chillies powder, and divided them into three equal parts according to the rules. Separate memos in respect of both the articles of food were prepared. When the samples were sent to the Public Analyst both were found adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst shows that turmeri...

Gulab and anr. Vs. Ram Krishan Dass and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 13(1977)DLT36

H.L. Anand, J.(1) This judgment would dispose of R.S.A. 35 & 48/73 and F.A.O. 104 & 105/72. (2) Since before 1956, shop No. 4745, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, had been in the occupation of Ram Pershad. By an agreement of November 5, 1956, Ex. P2, Ram Pershad agreed to leave a 3, wide, passage in the shop to put up a partition wall at his cost and to vacate the portion covered by the passage. Ram Pershad failed to carry out the agreement. The tenancy was accordingly terminated by notice of December 14, 1965(Ex. P6) sent to the tenant vide Ex. P7 and received by him vide Ex. P8. This was followed by a suit in 1967 for recovery of rent. Ex. P4. The suit was compromised on April 25, 1967 vide judgment (Ex. P6) in terms of a deed of compromise, Ex, P5, which envisaged a money decree, to be satisfied by Installments continuation of the tenancy and adherence to the earlier agreement regarding surrender of passage. The landlords thereafter accepted rent for the months of May and June 196...

V. Valliappan Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Venkatasubramanian, Chairman - This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, finding the appellant Shri Valliappan guilty of an attempt to contravene the provisions of section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and imposing on him a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on that account. 2. By the Boards direction of 24-2-1976, it was ordered that in view of the financial position of the appellant it would be sufficient if he deposited a sum of Rs. 300 on account of penalty. This having been done, judgment is now pronounced on the merits. 3. At the outset, it is necessary to deal with the question of limitation. The memorandum of appeal was received in the Registry of the Board on 1-8-1974. The order under appeal purports to have been despatched on 27-4-1974. The appellant had filed an affidavit to the effect that the order was not served on him personally though it indicates that it was to be sent to him. However, a copy of the order...

Union of India Vs. Jashan Mal and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1976Delhi335; 1976RLR298

H.L. Anand, J. (1) This judgment would dispose of C.R. 60/72, C.R. 04/72 and S.A.O. 30/73, which raise a common question as to the circumstances in which a consignee may sue the Railways for compensation on account of loss and/or damage to the goods, while in transit. (2) C.R. 60/72 arises out of a suit filed by the respondents, M/s. Jashan Mal & Co., fruit and vegetable Merchants, Subzimandi, Delhi for compensation on account of damage caused to a consignment of mangoes booked from Vizianagaram Station to New Delhi over the Northern Railway. The plaintiff was the consignee mentioned in the railway receipt. The suit was resisted on behalf of the Union, inter alia, on the ground that the plainitiff, though a firm of commission agents and a consignee mentioned in the receipt, was not the owner of the goods and could not sue. The suit was decreed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Delhi. On the question of locus standi, the trial Court held, relying on the case of Jalan and. Sons, Ltd. Air 1...

Anglo-dutch, Colour and Varnish Works Private Limited Vs. India Tradin ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1977Delhi41; ILR1976Delhi116

Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff for restraining the defendant-respondents, its servants, agents and representatives from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in white zinc paint under the containers bearing the numeral 9001, having the get-up-layout, arrangement and the colour combination violet, grey and white as those of the applicant's containers bearing numeral 1001 and from passing off goods as those of the applicant in any manner. (2) 'THE application has been filed in a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of infringement of copyright, as well as passing off. (3) The case of the plaintiff-applicant is that the plaintiff is one of the leading manufacturers and seller of superior white zinc paint well-known and highly demanded under trade mark 1001. The salient features of the plaintiff's trade mark are the numeral 1001 I appearing in bold type in grey lettering on a white circle along with the expression 'S...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-iv, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Sarof Industr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Del)182

ORDERT. V. R. Tatachari, C.J. - This is an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV, New Delhi, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying that the Income-tax appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, be required to state the case and refer the following question stated to arise out of the order of the said Tribunal assessment year 1966-67 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in concluding that the provision of Section 271(1)(c) are not attracted in the case of the assessed and thus holding that no penalty is livable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The assessed is M/s. Sarof Industries. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessed filed its return originally on 31st December, 1966, declaring an income of Rs. 66,000/- and the said amount was subsequently revised to Rs. 72,000/- and its assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 1,03,674/-. The difference between the returned inc...