Delhi Court September 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.
Lachman Singh and anr. Vs. the Statesman Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi450
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by two employees of the Statesman Limited raises some interesting questions as to the scope of the functions and the extent of the powers of the Court when called upon to consider if the plaintiff has a prima facie case, as to the powers of this Court on its revisional side where the courts below refuse to grant interim injunction on the ground that the plaintiff did not have a prima facie case and as to whether there is anything in the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders, Act, 1946, and the Standing Orders certified under that which may bar the claim of an industrial employee to enforce an agreement purporting to confer additional benefits on him merely because the same are not incorporated .by a modification of the standing orders.(2) Petitioner No. 2 is a working journalist while petitioner No. 1 , respondents No. 2 and 3 are non-working journalist employees of the Statesman Ltd. Ai...
R.K. Misra Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1976
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi424; 1977LabIC643
H.L. Anand, J.(1) These petitions under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India by six former railway employees raise a common question as to the validity of the orders of their removal from service for alleged incitement to and participation in an illegal strike without affording them any opportunity of being heard under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules', on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner laid down in the Rules.(2) The petitioners had been in the service of the Northern Railway for different periods ranging from 17 to 30 years. Some of the petitioners had been active trade union workers and held offices in the Local, Regional or National Union of Railway men. In April 1974, a representative body of Indian Railwaymen gave a notice to the Railway Administration of the intention of the railwaymen to go on a nationwide strike from May 8, 1974 in support...
V.L. Kashyap Vs. R.P. Puri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1976
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT369
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This bunch of cases has been placed for disposalThese are revisions filed under sub-section (8) of section 25B of theamended provisions inserted by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment)Act 18 of 1976, which came into force with effect from 1/12/1975. The amendments have been made in the Delhi Rent ControlAct, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These revisionsraise common questions of law of general importance and are, thereforee,taken up for decision together.(2) The amending Act has, besides expanding the definition oftenant in clause (1) of section 2 of the Act, inserted a new section 14A and also prescribed a summary procedure for trial of certain applications by addition of Chapter Iiia and insertion of sections 25A and 25B in it. Section 25A applies the provisions of Chapter Iiia notwithstanding anything inconsistent in the Act or elsewhere in any other lawfor the time being in force. The procedure is prescribed by section 25B and it governs only two...
Mithan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ150; ILR1977Delhi72; 1976RLR652
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) By this application (Cr. M. 1111 of 197(2) The review is sought on the ground that Shrimati Laxmi Devi,prosecutrix, after the dismissal of the petitioner's revision petition hadcompounded the offence under section 354 with the petitioner.(3) It may be noted here that the petitioner was tried by Shri S. M.Aggarwal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, New Delhi, on a chargeunder section 354, Indian Penal Code, under the provisions of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (herein called 'the old Code').Section 369 of the old Code envisaged that save as otherwise providedby that Code or by any other law for the time being in force or inthe case of a High Court, by the Letters Patent or other instrumentconstituting such High Court, no Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter. or review the same, except to correct a clericalerror. It is settled law that a judgment of the Criminal Court isfinal and on signing and pronouncing it the Court becomes junclusofficio. There is...
Suraj Bhan Gupta Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi158; ILR1976Delhi773
B.C. Misra (1) This revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the Sub-Judge, dated 2nd March, 1973, by which he has refused the application of the petitioner for restoration of the suit, in which the plaint had been rejected for non-payment of the deficiency of the court-fees. (2) The material facts of the case are that the petitioner before me, as a plaintiff, filed the suit giving rise to the revision on 10th June, 1970 for the relief of recovery of Rs. 7,750/ on the allegations, inter alia, that the petitioner was entitle to the payment of salary for the earned leave admissible to him. The court-fees paid on the plaint was only Rs. 735.60, while what was required to be paid was Rs. 906.40; thus there was a deficiency of Rs. 170.80. Time was prayed for making good the deficiency of court-fees and the court adjourned the case to 18th July, 1970 for the said purpose. It is significant to mention that no summons of the suit wa...
Hind Lamps Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1976
Reported in: 1977(1)ELT53(Del); ILR1977Delhi460
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) (ORAL) Since the days of electricity we all know what an electric lamp is. It is a glass bulb-shaped container of the incandescent filament used for producing electric light in a glow lamp. Nearly a hundred years ae:o, in 1882, the electric bulb was inven.ted. In recent times fluorescent tubes have come in fashion. This case deals with the levy of excise duty on component parts of electric- bulbs and fluorescent tubes.(2) Hind Lamp Ltd., petitioners in this case, are a. company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, (the company) . They are engaged in the manufacture of electric bulbs and fluorescent tubes. Their factory is at Shikohabad. They have two units. One is called lamp unit. The other is known as glassware unit. In the lamp unit the company manufactures incandescent lamps and fluorescent tubes. These are sold by them to various companies who market these lamps and tubes under their own brand names. No question, however, is in these proceedings...
Gopi Chand Vs. Bishambar Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi161
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1867, against the judgment dated 17th January, 1973, of the Small Cause Court judge by which he has held that the suit is not triable by the Small Cause Court and as such returned the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court. 2. The material facts of the case are that on 20th July, 1971 the plaintiff petitioners and the defendant respondent entered into an agreement for purchase of an immovable property mentioned in the agreement. The stale price as agreed was Rs. 17,500 out of which Rs. 500 were, paid in cash by the petitioners to the respondent as earnest money at the time of the agreement and the balance amount of Rs. 17,000 was to be paid at the time of registration by 30th July, 1971. 3. Clause (4) of the Contract provides that in case the vendor does not perform his part of the contract then on the expiry of the stipulated period it would be open to the vendee ...
iqbal Singh Vs. State, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ501; ILR1977Delhi100
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) The short question which arises for determination in this petition is whether in a case where the accused person's are to be tried for an offence punishable under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code . section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sections 161 and 165, Indian Penal Code . triable by a special judge but where pardon has been tendered by a magistrate to an accomplice in pursuance of the provisions of section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (herein called 'the Code'), the prosecution is under an obligation to file the charge sheet in the Court of the magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case or whether the special Judge can entertain the charge-sheet by taking congizance of the case in pursuance of the provisions of section 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (herein called the 'Amendment Act'). (2) Shri B. B. Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that in such a cas...
Janardhan Srivastava Vs. Daryao Pershad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-1976
Reported in: 12(1976)DLT330; 1976RLR585
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) This case is an illustration of the law that the executing court may refuse to execute a decree only if the lack of jurisdiction of the court passing the decree or order is not only apparent on the face of the record but is also one of inherent jurisdiction, that is to say, jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.(2) In an eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord against the appellant/tenant an order under section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) was passed by the Additional Controller on 23-8-1973. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 17-10-1973. In S.A.O. 286 of 1973 against the order of the Tribunal the appellant/ tenant made a statement admitting the claim of the respondent/landlord that the latter bona fide required the premises in question for his own residence and prayed that an order for eviction be passed against him but that he should be allowed time up to ...
Anil Gupta Vs. Sant Ram Dhuper and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi164
1. Anil Gupta filed a suit to recover Rs. 1,91,690.65 from Messrs Sant Ram Dhuper & Co., and its sole proprietor Sant Ram Dhuper under the provisions of 0. 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 25-5-1976. It was submitted by him that Sant Ram Dhuper had executed a promissory note on 16-6-1975 in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 1,66,518 for consideration and this promissory note was to bear interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, payable with monthly rests. The defendants made no payments to meet their liability on demand, and by the 25th May, 1976, a sum of Rs. 25,172.65 fell due as interest. Hence this suit for Rs. 1,91,690.65 with costs and future interest calculated at the rate of l5 per cent per annum with monthly rests. 2. On receipt of the notice of the quit the defendants moved an application under R. 3 of 0. 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I. A. No. 1434/76) for leave to appear and defend the suit. It was submitted that Yogesh C. Gupta, father of the plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »