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.
Blue Star Limited Vs. N.R. Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT216; [1975(31)FLR102]; 1977LabIC328; (1975)IILLJ300Del
H.L. Anand, J. (1) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employer, challenges an Award of the Labour Court, Delhi, in a dispute with regard to the validity of the termination of the services of its workman, respondent No. 1, by which the Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and all benefits including continuity of service subject to certain deductions and adjustments. The petition was filed in the following circumstances. (2) Respondent No. 1, the workman concerned, was appointed by the petitioner a joint stock company dealing in. air-conditioning and refrigeration, as a mechanic in May 1954 initially on aprobation for 6 months on asalary of Rs. 140.00 per month, inter alias on the condition that after confirmation the 'appointment can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof, by one calendar month's notice on either side'. in 1962 the staff of the petitioner formed a...
Avtar Singh Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi224
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) The petitioner, Avtar Singh, is anInspector in the Delhi Police. His case, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, when extricated from the massof confused details and irrelevancies which clutter the record, fallsunder four main heads. First, there is a question as to the date onwhich he ought to have been confirmed as Sub-Inspector, and theseniority to which he would thereby be entitled. The second questionis whether he was entitled to be considered for promotion to therank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1967. Thirdly, whetherthere were any circumstances existing which vitiated the consideration which he received for promotion to that rank in 1970 and 1972.And, fourthly, whether certain adverse remarks made in his annualconfidential report for the period 1969-70 ought to be expunged.I will deal with each of these questions in that order.Confirmation and Seniority(2) The petitioner started his career with the Delhi Police as a Const...
Narula and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi412
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condensation of delay in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 31-10-1975. (2) Certain disputes arose pertaining to contract No. CEDZ-3/ 65-66 for provision of Married Accommodation for Officers, Airmen & Amenity Buildings etc. around Delhi at Site No. 1. The said contract contained an arbitration agreement between the parties and thus in pursuance thereof a request was made to Brig. Harish Chandra, Director Designs, Engineer-in-Chief's Branch, Army Hq, New Delhi to act as an arbitrator in the matter. The said arbitrator took upon himself the task of settling the disputes and made and published his award on 31-10-1975. The original award Along with the arbitration proceedings was received in this Court. Notice of the filing of the award in the Court was served on the counsel for the plaintiff on 4-12-1975. Noti...
Ram Murti Wadhwa Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi691
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) The Facts The appellant was a member of the armed forces. At very early stage he chose a military career for himself in life. He was recruited as a boy in the army on July 27. 1948. On May 13, 1963, he was commissioned in the army medical corps as a second lieutenant. In due course of time he rose to the rank of a captain. In that position he was confirmed on May 13, 1970. (2) On November 11, 1968, the appellant was working in the post of an assistant administrative officer in the Armed Forces Medical College at Pune. The college has two divisions. One consists of the troops, that is. the defense personnel. The other is a civilian establishment. The appellant was working in the civilian establishment of the college which was under his charge. There were certain allegations of mismanagement against him. He was charged with having made payments to certain fictitious persons and making false entries in the monthly pay bills with an intent to defraud the Governm...
Bal Kishan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ410
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. Departing from the normal procedure in dealing with Criminal Revision Petitions at the admission stage I have heard the counsel in detail.2. The first contention raised by him is that the conviction of the petitioner by the courts below under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is illegal for the reason that the quantity of turmeric powder in fact purchased was not 450 grams but 400 grams. The arguments proceeds to assert that in case it is found that 400 grams had been purchased, then dividing the sample into three parts the requisite quantity meant for analysis could not have been furnished by the Food Inspector either to the Public Analyst or the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. I have seen Exhibit P. C, That document came into being at the actual time of purchase. It is specifically stated therein that the quantity purchased was 450 grams. While making the purchase the Food Inspector H.C. Saini allowed the present petitioner to write...
Sahib Dayal Chaman Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT17b; 1976RLR550
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an appellant in the appeal out of which it has arisen, challenges an order of the appellate court declining to grant ex-parte injunction to the appellant even while admitting to hearing the appeal of the appellant against the order of trial court, dismissing an application of petitioner for an injunction to restrain the Corporation from demolishing the premises in dispute during the pendency of this suit for a permanent injunction. (2) According to the petitioner, the petitioner obtained on lease a piece of land on Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, on which a structure was raised, which was destroyed in March 1972 in a fire which devastated a large number of other structures in the vicinity. According to the petitioner, the super-structure was repaired by the petitioner and a large number of other stall holders, who were members of the stall holders Association, on the assurance of the au...
Punjsons (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Delhi Printing and Publishing Co. (P) L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi4; 13(1977)DLT267; ILR1976Delhi143
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) On February 24, 1964, the respondent brought a suit for possession, injunction and damages against the appellants. The claim in suit was mainly for the possession of a courtyard at the back of shop No. M-12, Connaught Circus, New Delhi in which the respondent company is a tenant since 1939. The respondent's allegation was that the courtyard was included in their tenancy and that the appellants after purchasing the property from the previous owner in 1962 forcibly deprived the respondent of its possession. Injunction was sought with respect to demolition of structures and removal of goods placed in the courtyard by the appellants. A decree for Rs. 3,000 on account of damages was also claimed. (2) The trial court decreed the suit for possession and injunction on March 29, 1967. The claim for damages was, however, dismissed. 'THE appellants appealed. The additional district judge affirmed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal on April 5, 1969....
Sri Ram Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi401
V.D. Misra, J. (1) Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 concurrent powers of revision were conferred on the Sessions Judge and the High Court by section 435. The Sessions Judge could finally accept the revision and direct the Magistrate to make further enquiry into any complaint dismissed by him or order the commitment of an accused improperly discharged under sections 436 and 437. In other matters the Sessions Judge was required to make a recommendation to the High Court under section 438 if he found that order passed by the Magistrate should be reversed or modified. The effect of sections 435 to 439 was that a person could either invoke the powers of revision of the Sessions Judge and thereafter invoke the powers of the High Court or could straightaway invoke the powers of revision of the High Court, In these circumstances the High Court framed rule 3 of Chapter 1-A(b) of the High Court Rules and Orders Volume V. directing persons to invoke the revisional powers of the Sessions...
Gur Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1976
Reported in: 13(1976)DLT85; 1976RLR567
V.D. Misra, J. (1) An important question of law about the jurisdiction of the Court of Session to reduce the amount of the bond and the number of sureties asked for under section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been raised by the petitioners. (2) It is not necessary to give the facts in detail since these are not relevant to decide the question. Suffice it to say that the petitioners were proceeded against under section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after giving them the requisite notice under section 111 of the Code directed each one of them to execute a bond for Rs. 5,000 with two sureties in the like amount during the pendency of the proceedings. They failed to produce the sureties and were consequently detained in custody. The petitioners approached the Court of Session for reducing the amount of the bond and the number of .sureties under section 123(2) of the Code. Mr. S. R. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, held that he ...
Revisional Civil Ravi Butt Vs. Phool Wati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi530
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, upholding in appeal an order of the execution court overruling the objection of the petitioner with regard to the validity of the decree for the eviction of the tenant in respect of the premises pursuant to which the petitioner is sought to be evicted.(2) The proceedings have had a rather chequered course. Ram Saran Dass, since deceased, obtained a decree for the ejectment of his tenant, one Kabul Singh, in respect of the premises in dispute as early as the year 1955. Ejectment had been sought on the ground of non-payment of rent, nuisance and unauthorised sub-letting. Considerable evidence was led on behalf of the parties. Evidence was closed on November 29, 1954. On January 6, 1955, the court inspected the premises in dispute apparently with a view to verify the correctness of the rival contentions with regard to the condu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »