Delhi Court January 1977 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Trikha Ram Ved Parkashand anr. Vs. Union of India, Etc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi73; ILR1977Delhi85
ORDERin Council, dated 15th June. 1953: Rule V:- That a certain time be fixed within which it shall be the duty of the appellant or his agent to make such application for the printing of the transcript, and that such time be within the space of six calendar months from the arrival of the transcript and the registration thereof in all matters brought by appeal from Her Majesty's colonies and plantations east of the Cape of Good Hope, or from the territories of the East India Company, and within the space of three months in all matters brought by appeal from any other part of Her Majesty's dominion abroad, and that in default of the appellant or his agent taking effectual steps for the prosecution of the appeal within such time or times respectively the appeal shall stand dismissed without further order'.'(27) The rule shows that the dismissal for want of prosecution under the circumstances prevailing in that case was automatic without an order of the court. thereforee, there was no orde...
Nand Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1977
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ430Del
ORDERIn pursuance of the proviso to Sub-rule (I) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, I hereby terminate forthwith the service of Shri N K Sharma. Airport ticket clerk and direct that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing then immediately before the date on which this order is served on or, as the case be, may tendered to him.Sd/-(S. RAMAMRIIHAM)Deputy Director General of CivilAviationThis order led to the services of the petitioner being terminated on 15th June. 1971, forenoon On the same day, he tiled an appeal under Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism. He was informed on 28th February, 1972, that this appeal had been rejected.3. On 9th May, 1972, he filed the present writ petition under Ar...
Man Mohan Tuli and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi643
H.L. Anand, J.(1) These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a number of interesting questions as to the nature and incidents of terminal tax in the context of the rather unusual location of immovable property, consisting of godowns, which are situated at the Delhi-U.P, border in such a manner that while the only entrance to the property and a part of the built area is within the territorial limits of the State of U.P., and within the local area of the Ghaziabad Nagar Palika, a substantial part of the property falls within the territorial limits of Union territory of Delhi. (2) The petitions were filed in the following circumstances. Manmohan Tuli, a resident of Delhi, owns a piece of land situated on the Grand Trunk Road near the 6th mile stone from Delhi to Ghaziabad beyond Delhi-U.P, border. The land is surrounded in the south and west by the territory of U.P. and on the other two sides by the Union territory of Delhi. On the aforesaid land the owner built ...
Misri Devi Vs. the Collector of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi411; 1977RLR264
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These are six writ petitions. All of them involve one point namely, the Governments power of requisitioning under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act of 1952 (the Act). This judgment will govern them all.(2) In 1966 Shri B. N. Tandon, Collector Delhi issued notices under Section 3 of the Act in respect of four houses in Delhi. One house was A I/a, situated in Model Town. The second one was at Lucknow Road. The third one was 28/8, Shakti Nagar. Anthe fourth one was also in Shakti Nagar and numbered 1 1 /10.(3) The notices issued by the Collector under Section 3 of the Act in all these cases were very much identical. In the notice the Collector said : 'INexercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 and by Section 4 of the said Act, I, B. N. Tandon, Collector, Delhi being a competent authority under the said Act having been satisfied tht it is necessary and expedient so to do. I do hereby requisition the said propert...
Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi485
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a petition for revision filed on behalf of the tenant, Shrimati Kanta Goel, under proviso to subsection (8) of section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Rent Controller dated 16-9-1976 under section 14A(1) of the Act rejecting the application of the petitioner for leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the respondent. As a sequiter, the Rent Controller, passed an order on the same day stating that since the petitioner's application for leave to contest ejectment application was rejected the respondent was entitled to a decree for eviction. The petitioner was asked to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within two months of the order.(2) The eviction petition dated 3-2-1976 was filed by Shri B. P.Pathak (respondent) against Shrimati Kanta Goei (petitioner) purported to be under section 14A of the Act, as amended by the Delhi Rent Control Act...
Om Oil and Oilseeds Exchange Limited, Delhi Vs. Union of India and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi132; 1977RLR251
ORDER1. These petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by the subscribers of a number of telephone connections, inter alia. raise questions as to whether the petitions are maintainable during the continuance of the emergency, and, if so, whether the petitions are belated and, thereforee, disentitle the petitioners to the relief to which they are otherwise entitled by virtue of the decision on the merits of the controversy 'by the Supreme Court.2. The petitions were filed in the following circumstances. By an order made by the Administrator of Delhi on November 27, 1972 under S. 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 (for short the Act) the Superintendent of Police was authorised to take temporary possession of certain specified telephones installed in the various rooms and cabins of the building known as Coronation Hotel, Fatehpuri. Delhi. The order was said to be sequel to the satisfaction of the Administrator that illegal forward trading in agricultural commodity was going ...
Hindustan Embroidery Mill Vs. Hernia E. Mill
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR400
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959, Rules 53 & 106. If evidence in support of opposition to registration is not led within 2 months of filing of counter-statement U/R. 53 or within extended period U/R 106, then opposition to registration would be deemed to have been abandoned. Registrar cannot give fresh period for leading evidence after the decision of litigation between parties. He has no power of Review. (Appellants applied for registration of certain Trade Marks. Respondents filed opposition to it.Appellants then filed counter-statements. Under Rule 53, respondents were required to lead evidence within 2 months. But they applied for stay of proceedings and also for extention of time which were rejected on 18.4.68. They appealed to High Court which were dismissed on 19.2.71. Then on 2.7.71, office of Registrar asked respondents to file evidence within 2 months. Appellants challenged this but without success. They then filed instant appeal). Judgment after givin...
Ram Pyare Lal Vs. Om Parkash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1984; ILR1977Delhi549
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two appeals, Rfa 10-D of 1964, instituted by Ram Pyare Lal, plaintiff,, as well as Rfa 179-D of 1963, instituted by the Union of India, defendant No. 3. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree of the court of first instance, dated 3rd September, 1963, by which the court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, bearing No. 204 of 1960, claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 9000.00 on account of alleged malicious prosecution of the plaintiff, while the other suit (No. 205 of 1960) instituted by the same plaintiff has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 12,500.00 against the Union of India, on account of damages for false imprisonment out of a claim of Rs. 25,000.00 . In suit No. 205 of 1960, Union of India is defendant No. 3 and Om Prakash, who was the Station House Officer of the Kotwali Police Station, Chandni Chowk was imp leaded as defendant No. 1 and Naut Ram Yadav, Assistant Sub-Inspector of the same Police ...
Shyam Sunder Gautam Vs. Bimla Kumari Gautam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi539
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the husband against the appellate order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 15th January, 1976 by which his Lordship has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the trial court dated 2nd January, 1975, finally maintaining the dismissal of the appellant's petition for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion.(2) The material facts of the case are that the appellant husband and the respondent wife were married on 29th January, 1959 and they have a son born on 30th March, 1961, who is still alive. The appellant had been studying at Gwalior from 1958 to 1963 during which period he was married. In 1966 he got a job in Delhi as Inspector of Weights and Measurements, and now he is working as the Sales-tax Officer. According to the appellant in 1966 he began to live in the house of his father at 1741, Sohan Ganj, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, (which we shall refer to as 'paternal home'), but on 1st Februa...
Kanwar SaIn Chib Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi139
ORDER1. By these petitions under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners, who are owners of different flats on the first floor of Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, challenge the act of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short, the Corporation) in leasing out certain land abutting on the shops on the ground floor of the market to the owners of the shops, the constructions put up by the owners of the shops on the land and the further construction sought to be put up thereon pursuant to the lease.2. The petitions were filed in the following circumstances. Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, comprises of double storeyed Buildings with shops on the ground floor and residential flats on the first floor and the market is planned in such a way that the frontage of the flats and some of the shops are behind each other. The only entrance to the flats are through staircases on the backside of the flats be apparently part of the rehabilitation pool constituted u...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »