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.
Nem Chand Vs. Laxmi Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT33
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a tenant, which is directed against an order of the competent authority under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), granting permission to the respondent-landlord to evict the petitioner, must be accepted on the short ground that the petition of the landlord was barred by the principle of rest judicata, and ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone. (2) The landlord, who had obtained a decree for the eviction of the tenant, sought in 1962 permission, of the competent authority under Section 19 of the Act to execute the decree. The permission was, however, declined by the competent authority by an order of March 16, 1963, on the ground that with the permission granted to the landlord to execute a similar decree against another tenant the personal need of the landlord would be satisfied as the accommodation that would thus be avai...
In the Matter Of: Chaudhry Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Com ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT210
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) In this petition under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, moved by the petitioner company concerning a proposed scheme of arrangement and amalgamation between the petitioner and M/s. Choudhari Metal Industries Private Ltd. I had passed an order on 19th April, 1976, sanctioning the compromise, but making allowance for some further orders to be passed under Section 394 when information had been obtained. The matter was processed in the Registry for drawing up a formal order in form No. 41 and the question of drawing up a formal order in form No. 42 was deferred. The report from the Registry was that there were certain defects in the scheme as sanctioned which had passed un-noticed and furthermore, the transfer date was mentioned as 30th April, 1974 and it had not been indicated as to when the scheme would come into operation. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the petitioner company was merging into M/s. Choudhary Metal industries (P) Ltd., which had its...
In Re: Sharat Hardware Industries P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1976
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas23(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. In this petition under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, moved by the petitioner-company concerning a proposed scheme of arrangement and amalgamation between the petitioner and M/s. Choudhari Metal Industries Private Ltd., I had passed an order on 19th April, 1976, sanctioning the compromise, but making allowance for some further orders to be passed under Section 394 when information had been obtain. The matter was processed in the Registry for drawing up a formal order in Form No. 41 and the question of drawing up a formal order in Form No. 42 was deferred. The report from the Registry was that there were certain defects in the scheme as sanctioned which had passed unnoticed and, furthermore, the transfer date was mentioned as 30th April, 1974, and it had not been indicated as to when the scheme would come into operation. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the petitioner-company was merging into M/s. Choudhari Metal Industries (P.) Ltd., which had its...
Gem Plastic Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi30; ILR1976Delhi404
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) Gem Plastice Industries, the applicants herein, have filed the present application under Section 41 read with Schedule 2 of the Arbitration Act and Order 39. rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an ad interim injunction against the non-applicant respondents restraining them from recovering/withholding/appropriating/adjusting and/or in any manner giving effect to their illegal threat contained in their letter dated March 5. 1975 and/or enforcing the illegal recovery of Rs. 75,530 as contained in their letters, in any manner whatsoever.(2) The application arises in the following circumstances:(3) The applicants have filed a petition under Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, inter alia, challenging the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement said to be contained in the alleged acceptance of tender No. BP-4/2059-J/516/PAOD dated July 5, 1973 on the ground that the said acceptance of tender never created a valid bin...
Devi Dayal Textile Co. and anr. Vs. Nandlal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi7; 13(1977)DLT276
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed by the defendants under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against' the order of the Sub-Judge, dated 27th January, 1973, setting aside the dismissal of the suit.(2) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 27th January, 1973, none appeared for the plaintiff, while the counsel for the defendants was present, and the court dismissed the suit in default of appearance. On the same date the court suo moto recalled its order on the ground that the case was really fixed for 8th February, 1973 for obtaining the specimen signatures of the defendant and as such it could not be dismissed on 27th January, 1973 and so the order was recalled, and notice was issued to the defendants. The counsel for the defendants has challenged the subsequent order of the court and has contended that the court had no jurisdiction to recall the order under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure without an application of the-plain...
Ram Piare Lal Jogeshwar Munshi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1906; 12(1976)DLT226
V.D. Misra, J. (1) The petitioner and another person were charged under sections 120B/420/468/471, 466/471 and 477A, Indian Penal Code, by a Magistrate on July 4, 1973 and were ordered to be committed to the Court of Session since section 466, Indian Penal Code, was exclusively triable by a Court of Session, Mr. O. P. Singla, Additional Sessions Judge, framed a charge against the petitioner and his co-accused on September 4, 1973 and fixed the case for prosecution evidence from November 5 to November 9, 1973. The accused however, challenged the order of commitment and obtained a stay order- The Additional Sessions Judge could not thereforee proceed with the trial. After the Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the accused, January 24 to January 31, 1975 were fixed by the Additional Sessions Judge for evidence. Now the accused moved transfer application and obtained a stay order. The case was transferred to the Court of Mr. O. N. Vohra, Additional Sessions Judge, from which court it ...
Union of India Vs. Sahdev and Behari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi10; 12(1976)DLT713
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the Union of India against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated 10th December, 1974, by which he has held the claim of the respondents to be not barred by the sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The material facts of the case are that on an award made by the Collector offering compensation, the respondents had asked for enhancement had a reference to be made under section 18 of the Act to the District Court. When the matter came up for trial before the court, an objection was raised by the Union of India that since the respondents before me had failed to specify their claim under section 9 of the Act in spite of notice having been served on them, the claim was barred by section 25(2) of the Act. It appears and is not disputed that after service of a notice under section 9 the respondents did...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›