Delhi Court November 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.
Roshan Lal Singhania and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-18-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1027
S. Rangarajan, J.1. The four petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C, for quashing the summons (also warrants) issued to them by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Shri J. D. Kapoor) on 13-10-1976 in the following circumstances,2. It may be noticed that the Supreme Court has recently decided that an order issuing summons to the petitioners without jurisdiction to do so is not an 'interlocutory order', against which a revision would not lie (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana Cr. A. 124 of 1977 decided on 29-7-1977 : reported in : 1977CriLJ1891 and Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra Cr. Appeal 81 of 1977, decided on 31-10-1977 : reported in : 1978CriLJ165 .3. The facts leading to the present petition before this Court, briefly stated, are as follows : On 21-9-1973 Food Inspectors Sarvashri R.D. Sharma. O. P. Gupta and others took two samples of mustard oil from the factory premises of Messrs Radha Kishan Gobind Ram Private Ltd. The sam...
Om Prakash Narang Vs. Prabha Narang
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi240; 15(1979)DLT181
H.L. Anand, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal of the husband against a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court confirming in appeal the decision of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing his petition for a decree of judicial separation under S. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act brings into bold relief the conflict between the matrimonial obligation of a husband and his duty to his widowed mother, as her only child.2. The parties, who are educated and gainfully employed - the husband as an Engineer and the wife as a Teacher -were married in July 1967, and a son was born of the wedlock in Sept. 1968. The husband had lost his father during infancy and was maintained and educated by the mother, who is also an educated lady and is gainfully employed as a Principal of a Government School. Since the marriage between the parties and until the unfortunate discord that led to a precipitate situation, they all lived together in a house which is and has throughout been under the tena...
Sri Krishna Parshad and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-1977
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas397(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. Notice of this petition under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, was issued to the Registrar of Companies. No reply has been filed but objection has been taken orally that this court has no jurisdiction on account of the fact that a complaint had been filed before a Magistrate having jurisdiction even before the present petition is filed in this court. I may mention that the petitioners are directors of M/s. Western U. P. Electric Power & Supply Co. Ltd. and the defaults in respect of which this petition has been moved for relief are in respect of holding the annual general meeting for the period ending 31st March, 1976, and for other consequential defaults. It is unnecessary to deal with the nature of the default in this petition because the sole question for consideration on the petition is whether this court has jurisdiction to deal with this petition even after a complaint has been filed before a Magistrate in respect of the defaults concerning which relief...
Sudarshan Talkies (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi162; [1978]48CompCas591(Delhi); 14(1978)DLT28; ILR1978Delhi597; 1978RLR167
Prithvi Raj, J.1. By this Civil Writ Petition the petitioner prays that the proceedings before the Registrar of Companies ending with the order dated 30th Sept. 1969, passed (by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi (Annexure 'E') be quashed and that writ of prohibition be issued against the respondents prohibiting them from making recoveries of the amount of stamp duty and penalty imposed against the petitioner by the Collector of Stamps, respondent No. 2, and confirmed by respondent No. 1 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi, by his impugned order, Annexure E.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows. The petitioner took over the business of Sudershan Talkies, including its assets and liabilities, owned by Sarvshri Brij Lal Chawla and Surinder Chawla, in lieu of which 1440 equity shares of Rs. 100/each, fully paid up, of the petitioner were allotted to them. The petitioner in pursuance of the provisions of S. 75(1) of the Companies Act, 19...
Sudershan Talkies Delhi (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Stamps
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi287
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) Sudershan Talkies (Delhi) Private Ltd. (herein called 'the petitioner) took over the business of Sudershan Talkies, including its assets and liabilities, owned by Sarvshri Brij Lal Chawla and Surender Chawla in lieu of which 1440 equity shares of Rs. 100.00 each of Sudershan Talkies (Private) Ltd. were allotted to them. The Company in pursuance of the provisions of section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) (herein called . 'the Companies Act) filed a return before the Registrar of Companies in respect of the said 1440 fully paid up shares for Rs. 100.00 each allotted to Brij Lal Chawla and Surender Chawla for having acquired the business of Sudershan Talkies for a total consideration of Rs. 1,45,354.85 paise. Since no deed had been executed between the parties in respect of this transaction the particulars of the contract for allotment of the above-said shares, required to be furnished under section 75(2) of the Companies Act, were furnished in Form 3 pre...
Chandu Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi174
ORDER1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these Civil revision petitions, it would be appropriate to dispose them of by a single judgment,2. Briefly stated the facts pertaining to these revision petitions are as follows: The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (herein called 'the Corporation') held an auction on 21st Oct., 1973, for allotment of Kiosks situated near Bus Stop, Parade Ground, opposite Red Fort, Delhi. The petitioners were the highest bidders and consequently each one of them was allotted a Kiosk. Chandu Lal's bid was for Kiosk bearing No. 1. The Corporation accepted his bid for Rs. 450/- per month in respect of the said Kiosk and allotted the same to him as a licensee for a period of 11 month commencing from 1st Nov. 1973. His case is that in pursuance of the terms of the license, he deposited the security amount equivalent to three months fee and took the physical possession of the Kiosk on let Jan. 1974. He further contends that he had been peacefully ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. J.B. Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT1; ILR1978Delhi129
(1) The following question has beenreferred by the learned Judges of the Division Bench (Jagjit Singh andM. S. Joshi, JJ) by their order of reference dated August II. 1975.for decision of the full Bench : 'WHETHERholding one or more shares in the Municipal Corporation Cooperative Stores Limited or in any other cooperativesociety or company, engaged in the manufacture, importor sale of any article of food, amounts to having financialinterest in the manufacture, import or sale of articles offood for purposes of the proviso to sub-section (1) ofsection 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954'.(2) Lala Bishambar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant inthe criminal appeal out of which the present reference has arisen,raised a preliminary objection that the reference itself is incompetentas this question does not arise on the facts of this case. It wassubmitted by the learned counsel that the question, whether the FoodInspector who took the sample in the present case was duly ap...
D.R. Malhotra Vs. Indian Aluminium Cables
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR43
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) Petitioner made an application u/s 20, Arbitration Act for reference of dispute to arbitrator. Respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the Court and it was decided in favor of the petitioner and the matter was referred. The award was then made and filed in the Same Court (Successor). It was for 53.0000.00 Respondent contended that award was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and Sub- Judge upheld the objection. Petitioner, moved High Court. The judgment, after giving above facts, is para 8 onwards : (2) Now dealing with the present case which is a case in which a reference has been made u/s 20 by the subordinate judge, the wording of the S, 31 (4) can be usefully referred to. It is stated there 'Where any persons have entered into an arbitration agreement before the institution of any suit, with respect to the subject-matter of the agreement or any part of it, and where a difference has arisen to which the agreement applies, they or any of them instead of p...
Ganga Ram Vs. Mohd. Usman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi107; 13(1977)DLT204; 1978RLR145
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (No. 9 of 1887) against the judgment and decree of Shri B. B. Gupta, Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, dated 4th Oct., 1972, in Suit No. 3343 of 1972.2. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein, Shri Mohd. Usman, for recovery of Rs. 561.75p. alleging that the petitioner herein, Shri Ganga Ram, was a statutory tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, and that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi assessed the rate able value of the house No. 369 at Rs. 1,720/- and imposed other charges like water tax, scavenging tax, fire tax, etc. amounting to Rs. 111.80p. It was also alleged in the plaint that the petitioner (tenant) had sublet the premises in his tenancy to three persons who were paying rent to him amounting to Rs. 78.25p. per month, that the said amount was taken into consideration by the Corporation in determining the rateable value of the premises, a...
National and Grinday Bank Vs. Radio Electronics Corporation P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR217
F.S. Gill, J. (1) In his statement Sh. Udayan Bose, Public Witness .I. wanted to prove, Power of Attorney, dt. 3.11.62 executed by two officers of the plaintiff company (The National & Grindlays Bank Limited) in favor of Mr. John Herbert Keeble. This power of attorney had been duly authenticated by a Notary Public in London. An objection has been raised on behalf of the defendants that unless and until the resolution of the Board of Directors authorising the said officers of the Company to execute the general power of attorney in favor of Mr. Keeble is proved, the locus standi and power of those officers to act on behalf of the Company cannot be established. It is accordingly submitted that the said document can only be marked for the purposes of identification and cannot be exhibited for being read in evidence. (2) In answer, Shri Rajiv Sawhney, the learned counsel for the plaintiff Company, has combated this objection and has relied on Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act. He has su...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »