Delhi Court August 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.
Mohd. Younus and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi105
ORDER1. This Writ Petition was instituted by the petitioners in respect of acquisition proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in relation to land measuring 4 Bighas, 12 bids was which is situated in village Chandawali. The land is apparently a part of Khasra No. 634/8. The full particulars are to be found in the notifications relating to the acquisition. The notification under Section 4 relating to the acquisition was dated 13th November, 1959, published in the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary of that date. The notification in fact covered 34,070 acres of land situated in Delhi and around Delhi. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was dated 25th February, 1965. A copy of the notification is Annexure 'F'. The land is described in that notification as 5154/634-min. One of the points taken in this Writ Petition was that the number is not correctly given in the notification under Section 6 but, in arguments this matter has not been pressed, becau...
Daulat Ram Dharam Bir Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi768; 1977LabIC1010
(1) M/S. Daulat Ram Dharam Bir is a, partnership firm. They are engaged in the business of automobile and tractor parts. That the partnership firm was covered by the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 is not disputed. (2) To begin with the petitioner firm employed more than 20 persons. During April 1965 to Mar 1966 the case of the petitioner firm is that the strength of their employees fell below 15. The petitioner firm sent returns to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner saying that they were not covered by the Act as during this period the strength of their employees was below 15. thereforee, nothing by way of contribution was payable by them, they said. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner denied this. He claimed that for the period in dispute i.e. from April 1965 to March 1966 the petitioner firm was liable to pay Rs. 1688.60. He asked the Collector to recover the amount from the petitioner. (3) On September 14, 1967, the petitioner firm brought a writ petition under Art. 2...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Nand Kumar Bussi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi586
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The question whether this Court can interfere with the decision of the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Delhi depends on the true construction of the ambit of section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 under which this revision has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Section 25 is as follows :- 'REVISIONof decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes.- The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case 'decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit.'(2) The suit of the plaintiff petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 28.00 from 8-3-1969 to 7-1-1970 amounting to Rs. 280.00 from the defendant respondent her tenant, was only partly decreed by the learned Small Cause Judge because he held that' the rent agreed to be payable by the defendant respondent to the plaintiff petitioner for a room measuring...
Chiranji Lal Ramji Das Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi779; [1978]115ITR842(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These are six conjoint writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In all of them the parties are the same. So are the essential facts and the questions to which they give rise. The only difference is that they pertain to different assessment years for purposes of income-tax. This judgment will govern them all. '67 English Reports 313.'(2) First the facts. As a Hindu undivided family the petitioner firm M/s. Chiranji Lal Ramji Dass was carrying on business as commission agents. This family firm remained joint in status and business up to November, 13, 1955 when as a result of a partial partition the business assets were divided among the coparceners. up to the assessment year 1956-57 the family was assessed in the status of HUF. Thereafter the profits arising from the business were assessed in the status of a registered firm. The petitioner firm was the commission agent of Ganesh Floor Mills and were working as such at various pla...
Ganga Pershad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi125
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Yesterday I decided a writ petition of this petitioner. That was C.W.P. No. 462 of 1970. There I quashed the charge dated January 7, 1970 which was brought against him. This is another writ petition filed by him. Here he claims promotion. The relevant facts are stated in C.W.P. No. 462 of 1970. These facts will have to be repeated once more so far as they are relevant to this petition. (2) On January 7, 1956, the petitioner was appointed as secretary of the Notified Area Committee Narela. On April 7, 1958, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was established under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 (66 of 1957) (the Act). The functions of the Notified Area Committee Narela were taken over by the Corporation. As a result the petitioner became an employee of the Corporation. On October 14, 1960, he was appointed as superintendent in the scale of Rs. 350-475. (3) On October 14, 1965, he was suspended. On October 15, 1965, a charge sheet was served on him. T...
K.K. Mathai Vs. Mater Dei School
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: 1977RLR41
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) Applicant sued respondents for recovery of damages by filing an application for permission to sue as a pauper. Respondents on 25-8-75 obtained adjournment for filing reply. After they filed reply, applicant filed replication. Then issues were framed. Case was then being made ready for trial and before that respondent applied u/s 34 of Arbitration Act, claiming that pauper application was not a legal proceeding for purposes of S. 34, Arbitration Act.] Para 5 onwards judgment is - (2) There is a divergance of the judicial opinion with respect to the question whether an application for permission to sue as a pauper commences a suit. The consensus is that a suit commences when an application is presented for permission to sue as a pauper and there is no postponement of the acquisition of the status of the suit until the admission of that application under Rule 8. In Vijai Pratap Singh Vs . Dukh Haran Nath Singh and another, : AIR1962SC941 , the Supreme Court' held that a...
Ganga Pershad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi111
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) In this writ petition we are concerned with a municipal employee. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi brought a charge against him. He has brought this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the charge. (2) These are the facts. The petitioner Ganga Pershad was appointed as Secretary of the Notified Area Committee, Narela on January 7, 1956. On April 7, 1958, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was established by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. 1957 (the Act). By s. 511 the functions of Narcia Notified Area Committee were taken over by the Corporation. (3) On October 14, 1960, the petitioner was appointed as superintendent in the scale of Rs. 350-20-450-EB-25-475. On October 14, 1965, he was suspended. On October 15, 1965, a charge-sheet was given to him. This was the first charge-sheet. The inquiry under the first charge-sheet ended in his favor. On June 20. 1970, he was cleared of the charge. (4) While the inquiry on the first charge...
P.N. Lekhi Etc. Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ906; ILR1977Delhi6
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) Since common questions of law are involvedin these petitions it would be proper to dispose them of by a singlejudgment. (2) The case of Shri P. N. Lekhi, who is detained under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (herein called 'the Act'), mainly, is that the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhihas failed to perform the statutory duty imposed upon him by section 5 of the Act in that no general or special order specifying conditions,including conditions as to the maintenance, discipline and punishmentfor breaches of discipline had been made by him; that in the absenceof any such order the respondents have no power to keep the petitioner in detention and impose conditions upon him as set out inparagraphs 4 to 7 of the petition. Further, section 5 of the Act imposes a duty on the appropriate Government to provide by generalor special order maintenance to the detenu to ensure that his familydoes not starve and rendered impecunous. Accordingly...
Kashmira Singh and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1976
Reported in: 1976RLR645
M.S. Joshi, J. (1) Plaintiff contracted with Northern Railway to execute certain earth work. Work was to be finished by 12.9.72 but it was actually done on 31.3.73. The plaintiffs were not satisfied with payment and after notice, they filed this application. Claim 1 was deduction of amount due to shart measurement, claims 2 to 6 were for extra expense, deduction due to credit to another contractor, damages for defendant's lapses, interest etc. Defendants opposed the application on the plea that matters sought to be referred were 'excepted matters and the agreement did not contemplate their reference and that some of these did not arise out of the contract. The Court held that only claim 1 was covered by excepted matter and claim 7 did not arise out of contract. Claim 2 to 6 were ordered to be referred. Paras 4 to 10 of the judgment are :- (2) The work in question was to be carried out under 'General Conditions of Contract' of the Northern Railway and it is provided by clause 64 (1) of ...
Amarjit Singh Vs. D.D. Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi694
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This writ petition seeks to challenge the validity of the award given by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, on 27th July 1974. The petitioner was appointed on 24th September 1971 for a period of six months only. On 10th December 1971 his services were terminated with immediate effect. This order of appointment is not on record but previous orders of appointment had stipulated that petitioner's services were liable to be terminated during or at the end of the service at any time and without assigning any reason whatsoever. The Industrial Tribunal held that the termination of the services was not justified but granted to the petitioner the relief of only payment of one month's wages instead of reinstatement. Hence this writ petition.(2) The writ petition was Filed on 15th July 1976, that is, nely two years after the award was given. The first question which arises, thereforee, is whether the writ petition was inordinately delayed and whether this Court, thereforee, sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »