Delhi Court July 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.
Chitra Lekha Vs. Ranjit Rai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi176
1. This first appeal under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed by the wife against the order of Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge. dated 23rd October, 1973.2. The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The parties had been married on 28th June, 1971. The respondent husband filed a petition for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty under S. 10(1)(b) of the Act. This petition was dismissed with costs in 1973. During the pendency of the petition the appellant, soon after filing the written statement, made an application on 10th August, 1971 under S. 24 of the Act for grant of ad interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The respondent contested the application on the ground that the court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition and unless this was decided interim alimony could not be granted. The objection was repelled by the trial court and a revision against the same was ...
H.H. Nawab Mirza Yavar Khan and ors. Vs. Anand Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi445
Avadh Behari Rohatgl, J.(1) This is a tortuous. litigation. It seems unending. I will briefly outline its chequered career in the course of the judgment. (2) Way back in 1968 a compromise was entered into between An and Finance Company Private Limited on one hand and Bank of Baroda on the other. Since 1959 the company was enjoying cash credit facilities with the bank. In 1965 a sum of about rupees ten laes became due to the bank from the company. The bank asked for security. Ram Lal Anand who was the managing director of the company at that time deposited the title deeds of property No. 88, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi, in January 1966 and thereby created an equitable mortgage in favor of the bank. (3) The company, it seems, had fallen on evil days. It was heavily indebted. Apart from the Bank of Baroda which had become a. secured creditor, the company had a large number of unsecured creditors. Awinding up petition was filed in 1966 against the company. In April 1968 an application under s....
Anil Kumar Chanana Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: 1977RLR26
B.C. Misra (1) This order will dispose of four civil revisions, 203,204,256 and 627 all of 1973. They raise a common question of law. The respondent in each of the revisions is the Union of India, which was the defendant in the suits, while the petitioners are different plaintiffs. The revisions are directed against the various decrees of the Judge, Small Causes Court, by which he had dismissed the suits of the respective plaintiffs for recovery of the amounts of earnest money. (2) The detailed facts in each case are different Names and figures vary but the broad features are, however Common in all the four cases. The respondent Union of India issued ed invitations to tender for sale of commoditiese and demanded earnest money which was to be adjusted towards the price of the contracted, if the contracts were completed, or refunded to the party in case the tenders were rejected. Petitiongers submitted their tenders along with the earnest money. It was one of the terms of the tenders tha...
Union of India Vs. Gangaram Moolchand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: 1976RLR643
B.C. Misra (1) Respondent booked 2 parcels of mangoes on 31.5.67 from Kazipet to Delhi. These arrived on 7.6.67 and suffered 15% damages. Respondent alleging misconduct and negligence sued for damages and also applied under O 1l R. 14 asking Railway to produce record about transit of the parcels. Railway declined to give information saying that it would give its evidence. Plaintiff gave a list of instances in which transit took 4, 5 days. Trial Court on its basis and on the basis of para 116 of Loading Manual decreed the suit. Railway questioned the decree in High Court-judgment para 5 onwards is :- (2) The respondent filed a list of instances showing that the normal period of transit from Kazipet to New Delhi was 4 to 5 days. The petitioner filed another list showing the period of 7 to 8 days. The Petitioner Railway did not file the whole list of instances from which a legitimate inference could be drawn and have only given instances of the maximum time taken during that period. They ...
Union of India Vs. Gopal Dass Ramesh Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi508
B.C. Misra (1) This revision petition has been filed by the Union of India under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against the judgment and decree of the Additional Judge, Small Causes, dated 14th November, 1972, by which it has decreed the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs. 359.38 out of a claim for Rs. 406.25.(2) The material facts of the case are that 125 baskets of raw and fresh mangoes were booked on 30th May, 1967 from Vijayawada to New Delhi under the Parcel Way Bill (Ex. PI). They arrived in Delhi on 7th June, 1967 and when they were delivered to the respondent they were found to be damaged. The respondent took open delivery with a certificate that 25 per cent was the extent of damage. The respondent after service of statutory notice, filed a suit for recovery of the amount mentioned above on the ground that the Railway, owned by the petitioner, had been guilty of misconduct and negligence in carrying the parcel and was, thereforee, liable to pay the ...
Raj Kumar Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1976
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT105; 1976RLR573
Pritam Singh Safeer, J. (1) This petition is directed against the petitioner's conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioner was convicted on 30th April, 1976, by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a. fine of Rs. 1,000 was imposed. In case of his inability to pay the fine, the petitioner was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.(2) The conviction was based on the testimony of Public Witness 2 and P.W. 3 Sarvashri G. P. Baweja and Kharati Lal. Kharati Lal supported the deposition of Public Witness 2 Shri G. P. Baweja.(3) In this case it is not necessary to deal with the alleged purchase by Public Witness 2 of the quantity of milk from the petitioner as mentioned in his evidence.(4) The petition has been urged on the ground that the petitioner had been denied the right given by section 13(2) of the Act to get the sample in his possess...
Raj Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ881
ORDERPritam Singh Safeer, J.1. This petition is directed against the petitioner's conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Forxl Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioner was convicted on 10th April, 1976, by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-was imposed. In case of his inability to pay the fine, the petitioner was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.2. The conviction was based on the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 Sarvashri G.P. Baweja and Kharati Lal Kharati Lal supported the deposition of P.W. 2 Shri G.P. Baweja.3. In this case it is not necessary to deal with the alleged purchase by P.W. 2 of the quantity of milk from the petitioner as mentioned in his evidence.4. The petition has been urged on the ground that the petitioner had been denied the right given by Section 13(2) of the Act to get the sample in his possession examined by the Director of ...
Sadul-ul-nisa and ors. Vs. Sadul-ul-nisa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi523
B.C. Misra (1) This revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants against the order of the Sub-Judge, I Class, dated 25th October, 1972, by which he has held that the value of the suit falls within his pecuniary jurisdiction.(2) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/45th share, besides rendition of accounts. The valuation of the suit as given in the plaint is as follows : '1. For the purposes of court fee, a fixed court fee of Rs. 20.00 has been paid, as the plaintiffs are in part possession of the properties in dispute. 2. For purposes of jurisdiction Rs. 5000.00 being equal to the market value of the interest claimed by the plaintiffs in the properties in dispute. 3. For the purposes of rendition of accounts Rs. 1000.00 for the purposes of jurisdiction Rs. 200.00 for purposes of court fee, on which a court fee of Rs. 20.00 has b...
Jamila Khatoon Etc. Vs. Saidul Nisa Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1976
Reported in: 1977RLR54
B.C. Misra (1) This revision has been filed U/S 115 of C.P.C., by in the defendant against against the order of Sub-Judge, 1st class dt. 25. 10. 72 by which he has held that value of suit falls within his pecuniary jurisdiction. (2) Plaintiff instituted suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4 5th share... valuation for: purposes of jurisdiction Rs. 5,000.00 being equal to market value of the interest claimed... The deferdants Contested it... ...It was answered by the Court below in favor of plaintiffs....... (3) The Court below has held that plaintiffs have claimed l/45th of property and for purposes of jurisdiction, Rs, 5,000.00 being equal to the market value of the interest claimed by the plaintiff is the valuation of the property in dispute and as such the jurisdictional value of the suit was only Rs. 5,000.00, which fell within the competence of the court below. The court relied upon Shibgobinda v. Surinab All Air 1970 Tripura 64, Yumlembam Devi v. Naorem Devi Air 1968 M...
K.P. JaIn Vs. S.K. Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1976
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas774(Delhi); ILR1976Delhi291
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These two conjoint appeals from the order of the learned company judge (D. K. Kapur J.) both dated April 26, 1976, mainly turn upon the meaning and interpretation of two sections of the Companies Act, 1956 -sections 391 and 392. The facts (2) First the facts. Delhi Flour Mills Company Limited (DPM) was the holding company, It had a subsidiary. The subsidiary company is Indian Hardware Industries Limited (IHI). Now for some years past it has stopped working. (3) Ihi was incorporated in 1951 with a share capital of Rs. 8 lakhs. It floated 80,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. Since its formation 44,000 shares were held by the holding company, namely, DFM. They were the largest single share-holder having in their hands 55 per cent of the shares of IHI. The appellant K. P. Jain and his family hold 31,000 shares. That comes to 38.5 per cent of the entire holdings. 5000 shares are held by an outsider. (4) Ihi was engaged in the manufacture of builders hardware, lt ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »