Delhi Court October 1977 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.
Gapal Dass Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi138
Prithvi Raj, J. 1. These six petitions, Cr. Misc. (Main) Nos. 122 of 1977. 69 of 1977, 169 of 1977, 145 of 1977, 136 of 1977 and 174 of 1977, have been referred by a learned single Judge for determination of the question whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers at the instance of a party, who has a right of appeal or revision but has not availed himself of that right, can pass an order directing that a sentence of imprisonment awarded, to such a persona on a subsequent conviction, to imprisonment when, he is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment on an earlier conviction shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. Since the common question of law stated above arises in these petitions, it would be appropriate to dispose them of by, a single judgment.2. All the petitioners had been convicted separately in different cases and. sentenced to various terms by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. For the purposes of this order the facts of the various case...
Mohan Lal Goela and ors. Vs. Kishan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi63; 1978RLR300
Avadh Behari Rohatgi (1) One Shiv Pershad Gupta was the tenant of shop No. 285 (old) 625 to 632 (new) in Chandni Chowk, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 270.00 . He died on July 30, 1968, leaving behind him a widow, two sons and two daughters. (2) The landlord Mohan Lal Goela on November 2, 1968 brought a suit for possession and mesne profits in the court of the Commercial Sub Judge against Anchibai the widow of Shiv Pershad Gupta, his two sons Sri Kishan and Shiv Shankar and his two daughters. While the suit was pending in the court- of the Commercial Sub Judge Anchi Bai died on September 15,1974- The plaint was amended. Her name was deleted from the array of parties. The suit continued against the sons and E daughers of Shiv Pershad the original tenant. (3) The defendants raised the objection regarding the valuation of the suit. Finally the parties agreed that the valuation of the property be fixed at Rs. 51,000.00 . The court accordingly made an order fixing - Rs. 51,000.00 as the val...
Jagatjit Distilling and Allied Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi526
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Jagatjit Distilling and Allied Industries Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the distillers') is a joint stock company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1913. They have their registered office at Hamira in Kapurthala, Punjab. In 1945 the distillers placed an order for a complete Drum Screw Plant from two manufactures of England, namely. Moon Brothers Limited and Siemens-Sachuckert (Great Britain) Ltd. The Machine Tool Controller, Government of India required the distillers to furnish a guarantee. The distillers approached Bharat Bank Limited, Darya Ganj, Delhi (the bank). On June 18, 1945, the bank agreed to furnish guarantee to the Machine Tool Controller for Rs. 2,08,800 plus ten per cent for the purpose of the plant which the distillers had odered.(2) The distillers entered into an agreement with the bank. As a margin towards the guarantee of Rs. 2,08,800 the distillers gave a fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 57,429 which was in the fixed deposit account wi...
Mohd. Sadiq Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi557
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) These three writ petitions are a part of a bunch of seven writ petitions.(2) By our order dated September 15, 1977, we accepted four writ petitions (Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 53,(1) 54,(2) 55,(3) and 56(4) of 1977) and ordered the release of those four petitioners. These three writ petitioners also seek writs of habeas corpus challenging the validity of their detention. At the conclusion of the hearing on October 4, 1977, we announced our decision.. We accepted the writ petitions, made the rule absolute and issued a writ of habeas corpus in each of these three cases directing the respondents to set these petitioners at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Now we give our reasons.(3) In these three cases the Additional District Magistrate passed three separate orders of detention in respect of each of the three petitioners in April 1977 under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Securit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›