Delhi Court May 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.
Kelpunj Enterprises Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi198
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) The two petitions dealt with by this judgment pose a question of metallurgy. The question is : what is the difference between 'alloy' steel and 'stainless' steel As might be expected, it has arisen in connection with an import license. (2) The petitioner, M/s. Kelpunj Enterprises, is a partnership firm. It had a small scale industrial unit in the Industrial Estate in Trivandrum. On the basis of an Essentiality Certificate issued by the Director of Industries and Commerce, Trivandrum, the petitioner obtained an import license dated 7th March 1962 from the Regional Iron and Steel Controller, Madras. The license permitted the import of 'Tool and alloy steel/alloy steel strips/sheets containing chromium and nickel in addition to carbon' up to a c.i.f. value of Rs. 3,37,500. It was an actual user's license, the goods being intended to be used for the 'Manufacture of all kinds of saw blades'. (3) Under the license, the petitioner imported two consignments of steel from J...
Ram Kishan Das Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1976
Reported in: 1976RLR562
V.D. Misra, J.(1) By this jail petition Ram Kishan Dass, who is under detention because of his failure to furnish the bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 with two sureties of the same amount under section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenges his detention and the proceedings initiated against him. (2) I am deciding the petition on a question of law and would refer only to those facts which are necessary to decide the question. (3) The record shows that by an order of November 6 1975 Mr. R.S. Sethi, Sub Divisional Magistrate (Shahdra) ordered the arrest of the petitioner under section 111 of the code and his production before him. The relevant part of the order reads : 'Where information has been laid before me that there is reason to that Shri Ram Kishan Dass son of Kedar Nath R/o 314, Shakula Gali, Shahdara, (?) to commit a breach of the peace and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented than by immediate arrest of Shri Ram Kishan Dass.' A copy of the order passed ...
Prem Devi Pandey and ors. Vs. Dayal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1976
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT280
Dalip Kapur, J. (1) This is an appeal by the legal, representatives of the late Shri Ram Partap Pandey, who died as a result of a motor vehicle accident which took place on 10th November, 1967 at 5-15 P.M. on Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. The appellants are the widow, five daughters and the parents of the deceased Shri Ram Partap Pandey. The respondents are Shri Dayal Singh, the driver of the bus belonging to the Delhi Transport Undertaking which was involved in the accident and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which was then running the bus. Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the Delhi Transport Corporation and others. Apparently, the liability which fell on the Delhi Municipal Corporation at the time of the accident has now fallen on the Delhi Transport Corporation by operation of subsequent legislation changes. (2) The only serious question agitated before me on behalf of the petitioners and the cross-objector is in relation to the quantum of damages that has to be award...
Union of India Vs. Kundan (Deceased)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi38; 13(1977)DLT289
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) On June 15, 1967, the Union of India filed an appeal in this court against the order of the Additional District Judge Delhi dated March 4, 1967, whereby he had enhanced compensation by a sum of Rs. 4230 awarded in favor of one Kundan by the Land Acquisition Collector.(2) In the appeal of the Union of India the sole respondent was Kundan. He died on July 27, 1971 leaving behind two son:, and a daughter.(3) The appellant Union of India did not take steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record of the appeal. The appeal abated.(4) On July 22, 1972. one of the sons of the decceased respondent namely, Surat Singh made an application under Order 22 Rule 4(3). Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the appeal of the Union of India had abated and the same be, thereforee, dismissed with costs. This application was put up before the Registrar. On August 9, .1972, he ordered that notice of the application should go to the Union of India....
Mrs. Promila Bansal Vs. Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1976
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas202(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. This petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, prays for rectification of the register of members of the respondent-company on the ground that the petitioner is a holder of 1,738 cumulative 10% preference shares having the face value of Rs. 100 each in the respondent-company, the distinct numbers of which are 15722 to 17509. It is claimed that the petitioner left the country in 1966 to live with her husband in the United States of America and, except for a few occasional visits to India, she has been living there ever since. In paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the petition, it is claimed that the shares of the petitioner have been forfeited illegally and got transferred fraudulently by the directors to themselves or their nominees or friends. It is claimed in paragraph No. 8 of the petition specifically that the forfeiture is void as being in violation of Article 42 of the articles of association of the company. In paragraph No. 9, it is claimed that no notice in...
Kewal Krishan Mayor Vs. Kailash Chand Mayor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi97
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This is a suit for partition of properties andhas arisen in the following circumstances.The plaintiff, Dr. Kewal Krishan Mayor, and defendant No. 1,Shri Kailash Chand Mayor, are the sons of late L. Bal Mukand whowas the son of Shri Dina Nath. The said L. Bal Mukand, besides theplaintiff and defendant No. 1, had one son named Shri Brahm Duttwho died during the life time of L. Bal Mukand. L. Bal Mukand hadtwo daughters, defendant No. 2 Smt. Brahm Wad Sood and defendantNo. 3 Smt. Raj Kumari Dhanda. Shri Brahm Dutt who died duringthe life time of L. Bal Mukand, left behind his son Shri Anil Mayor,defendant No. 4, and a daughter Smt. Neelam Sood, defendant No. 5and a widow Smt. Parkash Mayor, defendant No. 6. Smt. Lal Deviwas the wife of L. Bal Mukand and the mother of the plaintiff anddefendant No. 1 Smt. Lal Devi died on 9th of November, 1965.L. Bal Mukand died at Delhi on 27th of June, 1973. (2) The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint of the suit is thatL. Bal ...
Wattan Singh and Sons Vs. the Registrar of Trade Marks and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi1; 13(1977)DLT294; 1976RLR236
1. By this appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellants, M/s. Wattan Singh & Sons, change an order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, accepting the application of the respondents M/s. Bakhtawar Engineering Works, for the registration of their rival mark under Section 12(3) of the Act. The appeal has been filed in the following circumstances.2. According to the appellants, they are engaged in the manufacture and merchandise of agricultural machinery, chaff cutter blades and their components and have been carrying on this business under the trade mark 'DO CHIRI' with the device of two birds since 1932 through their predecessor-in-interest and since 1937 by themselves. The mark was registered in 1949. The application of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants for registration was then opposed on the ground that the then opponents had been using a similar mark based on the flying bird devic...
Kali Ram(***) Vs. Ram Rattan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT250
Dalip K. Kapur, J. (1) The parties to this appeal are brothers who had entered into a partnership on 11th January, 1964. The business was to be carried on under the name and style of M/s. Gupta Handloom Stores on certain terms and conditions which will be analysed later to the extent necessary in this appeal. R am Rattan, the respondent in this appeal instituted a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts slating that he had become a T.B. patient and had not been able to look after the business of the firm and, the defendant had taken some illegal steps to expel him from the business and had fabricated books of account and removed a major portion of the assets. Further, it was alleged that disputes had arisen between the parties and a reference was made to arbitration, but the arbitrators were unable to reach any decision. The plaintiff wanted a decree for dissolutisn of partnership and rendition of accounts. Kali Ram. the present appellant resisted the suit and cla...
Motilal Khanna Vs. Abdul Jalil
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT110; 1976RLR546
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The appellant is a tenant judgment- debtor who has filed an appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 3rd December, 1975, by which the appeal has been dismissed and the order of the Additional Controller dated 31st October, 1975 has been affirmed; as a result the appellant has finally been held liable to be dispossessed in execution of the order for eviction which had already been passed. (2) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of shop No. 4231-32, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi, on a rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. On 16th October, 1974 the respondent after serving the requisite statutory notice, instituted a petition for eviction against the appellant, on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting, specified in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of sect...
Lal Behari Tewari Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1976
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT302
Vyas Dev Misra, J.(1) This is a petition from jail challenging the petitioner's detention under section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the last date of hearing the petitioner was not produced in Court and the Superintendent of Jail sent a report stating that the petioner had been 'released on bail on May 15, 1976.' Since the petitioner had been 'released on bail on May 15, 1976.' Since the petitioner had challenged the proceedings and his continued detention, I summoned the records of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned to find out the true state of affairs. The records have now been received. The order of May 15, 1976 shows that the petitioner was discharged since the petitioner had been in custody for more than six months and under section 116(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the proceedings stood terminated automatically.(2) Normally I would not have passed the present order because the petitioner has since been discharged. However, on going through the record and...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »