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.
Mahabir Pershad Vs. Delhi Traders Private Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi45; 1976RLR436
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree-holder against the order of the court below dated 22nd January, 1969, by which the court has allowed the objection of respondents 3 to 11 against delivery of possession.2. The material facts of the cage are that the decree-holder petitioner before me on 29th September, 1966, obtained a decree for possession of the land in dispute from respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who were judgment-debtors. The decree holder then made an application for execution of the decree and issuance-of warrant of possession. In this application he mentioned that respondents 3 to 11 were holding the property on behalf of the judgment-debtors and were, thereforee, bound by the decree for possession The execution court issued, notices to the said respondents, who raised objections that they were not holding possession on behalf of the judgment debtors and so were not bound by the decree and were not liable to di...
The Union Co-operative Society Limited Vs. R.K. Bahal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi862
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) In 1963, the respondent R. K. Bahal, was working as an Office Assistant in the head office of the Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. at Delhi. By a memorandum dated 14th November 1963, he was informed that he had been transfer- red as Office Assistant-cum-Typist to the office of the Society at Kanr, and was required to report there on 23rd November 1963. For some reason, the respondent did not wish to go to Kanpur. He wrote to the Society to extend time till 27th November 1963 for him to report at Kanpur, on the ground that his mother was seriously ill. This re- quest was granted. But, it is clear that, in fact, he utilised the time to persuade the General Insurance Employees Association, Northern Zone, of which he was a member, to move on his behalf in the matter. The Association took up his cause and raised an industrial dispute which went before the Conciliation Officer. (2) Whilst conciliation proceedings were continuing, the Society allowed the responde...
Tribhuvan Nath Bhargava Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi1
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The petitioner, Tribhuvan Nath Bhargava, is an Assistant Inspector General of Police (CID) Bhopal. He is 46 years of age. He is a member of the Indian Police Service. He was directly recruited to that service. He appeared in a competitive examination in 1953. He was successful. He was appointed to the Service on February 1, 1955. He was allotted to the cadre of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat. According to Rule 3(3)(a) of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules 1954 (the Seniority Rules) the petitioner was assigned 1954 as the year of allotment. (2) Subsequently the petitioner was confirmed in Service with effect from February 1, 1957. There was a reorganisation of States and the petitioner was allotted to the cadre of the newly created State of Madhya Pradesh. Since then he is working there in the Indian Police Service. (3) On February 25, 1974, the Government of India, respondent No. 1, made an order whereby they fixed inter se, seni...
Ved Prakash and ors. Vs. Ram Narian Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT298
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This order will dispose of L.A.33Of 1976 which has been filed in the suit itself by way of an application on behalfof respondents 2 to 5 only purporting to be under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, but really under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act for determiningthe scope of Arbitration agreement and the Award pursuant thereto as well asfor quashing the Award, if any and the consequential proceedings.(2) The main question which is involved in the petition is whether any petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is at all maintainable after theAward being made by the Arbitrator and it being filed in court and after noticebeing given to all the parties to the arbitration agreement and the Award andafter the Award being made a rule of the Court as per consent of allthe parties.(3) The question as aforestated has arisen in the following circumstances :It appears that a tripartite agreement described as memorandum ofSettlement was entered into between the pa...
Ved Parkash and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn Goyal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi47; 13(1977)DLT301; (1977)ILLJ101Del
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This order will dispose of E.A. 32 of 1976 which has been filed by way of objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of this Court dated 25th August, 1975 for being declared a nullity and inexecutable on behalf of judgment-debtors Nos. 2, 3. 4 and 5.(2) It appears that a tripartite agreement described as memorandum of settlement was entered into between the parties, M/s. Madhosons Stores & Services (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), M/s. R. S. Madhoram & Sons (NB), (hereafter referred to as 'the firm') and the 13 employees of the Firm (hereinafter referred to as 'the decree-holders'). The settlement is dated 24th day of May, 1974.(3) The terms of the aforesaid settlement provided that the firm and the Company agreed to pay to all the decree-holders an amount shown against each in column Nos. 1 to 13 of Annexure 'A' to the Settlement, in full and final settlement of their accounts up to March 31, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›