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.
Bhagat Raja of Bombay Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi583; 1976RLR158
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) In these two writs Bhagat Raja is the petitioner. His name is well known in legal circles. In this very case he went to the Supreme Court in 1966. The Supreme Court decision entitled Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, : [1967]3SCR302 opened up a new field in administrative law. It is a leading decision on what is known as a 'speaking order'. This time Bhagat Raja has chosen to come to this court. These two writ petitions are an aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in every of the term. This judgment will govern both the cases.(2) By a notification dated January 8, 1964, published in the State Gazette the Andhra Pradesh Government notified that an area aggregating Ac. 113.50 in village Brahmanapalli and Ac. 13.10 in village lppatta both in the district of Cudapah were available for regrant for mining asbestos. The State Government invited applications under r. 53 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (the Rules) framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation ...
Badri Dass and anr. Vs. Mahabir Pershad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi716
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by defendant appellants against the appellate judgment and decree of Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Additional District Judge, dated 20th July, 1970 by which he has dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the decree of the Sub-Judge, I Class, dated 15th December, 1969, finally maintaining the decree for ejectment of the appellants from the land in dispute, besides payment of Rs. 3,680 and costs. (2) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 11th June, 1964 by Ex. P5 the appellants before me took a piece of land measuring about 1100 sq. yds. situated; in village Chandrawali, Shahdara, from the plaintiff respondent on a rent of Rs. 135 per month. The duration of the lease was 11 months, expiring on 10th May, 1965. There is no dispute between the parties relating to the payment of rent for the period till the expiry of the lease. The appellants, however, did not pay rent for the s...
Pran Nath Lekhi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi167; 1977CriLJ1130; ILR1977Delhi146B
Prakash Narain, J. (1) Criminal Writ No. 221 of 1975 was dismissed by us in liming on July 27, 1976 and Criminal Writ No. 62 of 1976 was dismissed by us on the next day by short orders pronounced in court. We had also indicated in our short orders that reasons will be recorded later. We now proceed to record our reasons for dismissing these two petitions. (2) At the outset we would like to place on record our thanks and appreciation to Mr. V. P. Raman, Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Harish Chandra, Central Government Counsel who ably assisted us amices Curiae at our request. (3) In Criminal Writ No. 221 of 1975 the petitioner is a detenu who has been detained in pursuance of an order made under Section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. This petitioner had by his petition prayed that this court should declare that: '(I)the continuance of emergency declared in 1971 and (ii) the emergency declared on 25/26 June, 1975 (iii) all actions taken, including the raid and se...
Rawla Construction Co. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi205
ORDER1. The petitioner entered into a contract with the Union of India for the construction of residential accommodation for certain units at Meerut being agreement No. CENZ/ MRT/E/34 of 1971-72 (hereinafter referred to as Contract agreement). The contract agreement was subject to General Conditions of Contracts as contained in I.A.F.W. 2,249. Under Clause 64 of the said General Conditions of Contracts, the petitioner/contractor was entitled to running payments at intervals of not less than one month, Such running payments were to be made up to the extent of 90% of the value of work executed and the remaining 10% could be retained by the Union of India as a reserve in case of works not exceeding Rs. 5 Lacs; 7 1/2% on the next Rs. 5 Lacs and 5% on the balance after the first Rs. 10 Laws. In one of the provisos to said clause 64 it was provided that the contractor may be paid advance on account to the full value of work executed on the site on his furnishing Guarantee bond(s) from a Sche...
Savitri Devi Abdali and ors. Vs. Ram Bhaj Datta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1976
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT334; 1976RLR138
B.C. Mistra, J. (1) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant and is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 12th February, 1975, by which the appeal of the appellants has been dismissed and the order of the Additional Controller, dated 19th March, 1974, ordering eviction of the appellants on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act has been affirmed, with time till 31st March, 1975 to vacate. After its expiry, the appellants have, while there was no stop in operation, been dispossessed and they are out of possession for considerably long time and have probably acquired other residential accommodation.(2) The material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The premises in dispute are G-44, Kalkaji, New Delhi and they were let out to the...
Santosh Chopra Vs. Teja Singh Sardul Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi110; ILR1977Delhi216
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 24th May, 1975, by which an Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissed the petitioner's application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved in that court. To appreciate the scope of the controversy in this Court it will be advantageous to first briefly notice the facts and circumstances leading to the impugned order. (2) The petitioner claims to be a tenant in the premises bearing No. 6324, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This property was owned by one Harbans Kaur. On February 9, 1971, the petitioner filed an application in the court of Rent Controller, Delhi, for fixation of standard rent of the premises in her occupation, claiming herself to be a tenant of Harbans Kaur. This application was decided exparte on October 12, 1971, and standard rent was fixed at Rs. 62.50 per month. On October 15, 1971, Harbans Kaur sold the said property to the present ...
R.P. Dube Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi79; 1976RLR595
H.L. Anand, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constiution of India, the petitioner, who claims to be the Secretary or theDelhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd., a Society, registeredunder the Bombay Cooperative Society Act, 1925, as extended to theUnion Territory of Delhi, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Society',seeks to quash certain orders made by the Registrar, Cooperative Soieties, respondent No. 2, and to restrain the respondents, who includethe Lt. Governor of Delhi, certain individuals who claim to be itsoffice-bearers, and the Commissioner, Food & Supplies, from interferingin the working and management of the Society. An order is also soughtto restrain the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi, hereinafter to bereferred as 'the Registrar', from taking any action under Section 55 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 hereinafter to be referredas 'the Act'.(2) The Society was registered in December 1962 with the object of organising, assistin...
Revisional Civil Union of India Vs. Jage and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1976
Reported in: ILR1976Delhi515; 1976RLR588
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This revision under section 115 Civil Procedure Code is directed against the order of the Additional Districl Judge passed on 18th February, 1975 purporting to alow the application of Ram Kumar and seven other persons made on 16-1-1971 under sections 151 to 153 Civil Procedure Code in the following circumstances.(2) Certain fields belonging to Ram Kumar and others were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and an award was made by the : Collector offering certain compensation to the owners. Ra,m Kumar and others along with certain other persons whose lands also had been acquired made an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Collector staling that the land belonging to them as per schedule attached to the application under section 18 had been the subject of the Land Acquisition Collector's Award No. 2024. The schedule of land belonging to the petitioners and attached to the petition, however, did not give a complete lis...
K.S. Bansal Vs. Indian Airlines and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi114; ILR1976Delhi724; 1977LabIC739; 1976RLR246
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This case raises a point of widespread application. The question is about the powers of the statutory corporations to terminate the services of their employees. (2) The petitioner joined the Indian Airlines Corporation on 20th October, 1955 as an office assistant. Since then he had been working there. In October, 1973 there was a general strike in the Corporation. On 24th November, 1973 the Corporation declared a lock-cue. On 18th December, 1973 lock-out was lifted. But in December, 1973 the Corporation demanded an undertaking from its employees and those who were prepared to give an undertaking in the prescribed form could join service. (3) On 24th December, 1973 the petitioner gave an undertaking in the form demanded. But he however added the following in the undertaking: 'I save all my previous claims, on reciprocal basis and in accordance with the law of the land'.Apparently this undertaking was not accepted and he was not taken back in service. (4) In M...
Sardar Carbonic Gas Co. Vs. Sher-i-punjab Tading Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1976
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT129
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This order will dispose of LA. 444 of 1976 filed by the plaintiff under order 40 rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appoiltment of receivers for taking immediate possession of the cylinders lying stored at various places mantioned in the application, as well as LA. 468 of 1976 filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 for staying operation of the ad-interim order dated February 26, 1976 passed in LA. 444 of 1976 filed on behalf of the plaintiff. (2) The plaintiff had filed the aforesaid application for appointment of receivers during the pendancy of the suit filed by them, against defendant Nos. 1 & 2 for recovry of Rs. 2,21, 977.26 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return and deliver back 584 cylinders and not to obstruct the plaintiff to have access to the said gas cylinders and to take them in its possession and also for prehibitory injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, disposing, dealing or using them ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »