Delhi Court December 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.
Prabhu Dayal Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi227; 14(1978)DLT103; 1978RLR230
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. This reference to a larger Bench is made because two divergent constructions of S. 77-C (1) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seem to be possible. One construction results in making the Railway Administration liable for any damage, deterioration, leakage or wastage of goods carried by it, while the other construction exempts the Railway from such liability. We are to consider which of the two constructions is to be preferred and why. 2. Sub-secs, (1) and (4) of S. 77-C of the Act, which alone are relevant, are reproduced below:- ' (1) When any goods tendered to a railway administration to be carried by railway- (a) are in a defective condition as a consequence of which they are liable to damage, deterioration, leakage or wastage, or (b) are either defectively packed or packed in a manner not in accordance with the general or special order, if any, issued under sub-see. (4) and as a result of such defective or improper packing a...
Gopi Shyam Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-1977
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT169; 1978RLR335
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dismissing with costs the suit filed by the plaintiff Gopi Shyam against the defendant. Union of India, for the recovery of Rs. 13,217.67 towards the loss sustained by him on account of the non-delivery of two silver bars consigned to him by the Northern Railway.(2) Gopi Shyam, the plaintiff, was employed in the Lucknow branch of a firm known as Inder Narain Har Narain which was carrrying on business in gold and silver with head office at Delhi and a branch at Lucknow. He left the employment of the above firm sometime in 1959 and was thereafter carrying on business as bullion broker at Phoolwali Gali, Lucknow. On 9-5-1961, he placed an order on telephone with M/s. Inder Narain Har Narain at Delhi for the purchase of two bars of silver. He asked them to send the silver bars by passenger train and send the relative parcel way-bill and bijak to their Lucknow branch for delivery to him a...
Guru Dayal Pershad Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-1977
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi507
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) Dr. Gum Dayal Pershad, who has invoked the jurisdiction' of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has had to wait nearly for 4 years hoping the President of India to review his order dated 17-4-1965 terminating the Petitioner's services w.e.f- 22nd May 1965 (the same having been served on 22-4^1965) and for nearing 8 years in this Court to get the relief which he seems to be entitled, even on purely legal grounds. (2) The facts of this case are briefly stated: The petitioner holds a Masters Degree in Agricultural Science and two Ph.D. Degrees Ph.D. (Botany Iowa, U.S.A.) and Ph.D. (Genetics -IOWA, U.S.A.) besides being a Fellow of the Indian. Genetics Society. He was selected for appointment as Director of the Central Silkworm Seed Station, Srinagar w.e.f. 1-6-1962. The Silk Board is a public enterprise, a Statutory Corporation. It is common ground that he had been serving at the said Station on and from 1-6-1962 till the date of his te...
Girdhari Lal Gupta Vs. K. Gian Chand JaIn and Co., Delhi-6
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi146; 14(1978)DLT132
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. These two appeals against the order of a learned single Judge holding that the High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain the applications made by the respondents under S. 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), have been referred to the Full Bench for a fuller consideration of this important question of jurisdiction than it received in the order of the learned single Judge under appeal or in the judicial decisions relied upon and followed by the learned single Judge.2. The respondents in these two appeals each filed a petition under S. 51-A of the Act on the following averments supplemented by oral arguments:-A. Both the respondents and the appellant are carrying on the same trade at Delhi. B. The appellant has got two designs 131357 and 131364 registered in the Register of Designs maintained under Section 46 of the Act. C. These designs had, however, been published in India in respect of laces prior to the date of r...
Audyogic Karamcham Group Housing Society Limited Vs. Delhi Development ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT110
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) Two important questions of law arise in this writ petition, namely :- (1)How the executive power of the Union of India to dispose of its own land under Article 298 of the Constitution is to be exercised in compliance with its obligation under Article 14 of the Constitution not to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws ? (2)Whether the directions given by the Central Government to the Delhi Development Authority regarding the disposal of nazul land could be issued only under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 particularly under section 22(3) thereof o)- also under Article 298 in exercise of executive power and the difference between the ambits of relevant considerations which may underlie a direction issued under the statute or the Constitution as the case may be ?THEimportance of these questions is accentuated by the fact that land with a building potential in Delhi and particularly in South Delhi is scarce and the Central Gov...
Harbans Singh Vs. J.D. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1977
Reported in: 8(1972)DLT329
M.R.A. Ansari, J.(1) This order will dispose ofC. M. (M) Nos 148, 151, 152 and 156 of 1971.(2) These petitions arc filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In C. M (M) No. 148/71, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the judgment dated 8th June, 1971 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in R C. A. No 95 of 1969. A certified but unstamped copy of the judgment of the additional District Judge has been filed along with this petition as Annexure 'G' The petitioner has also filed Annexures 'A','B' 'C' and 'P which are copies of the orders and judgments of various courts. One of them, namely, Annexure 'C', is a certified copy and the others annexures are copies which have been attested by the petitioner's advocate as true copies. Annexure 'D' is a copy of the cross objections filed in R.CA. No. 121/69 and Annexure 'E' is a copy of the brief notes of arguments on behalf of the petitioner herein who was respondent No. 2 before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The ...
inder Singh and Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi633; 1978RLR493
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) By a judgment dated 19th May 1975, the two appellants Inder Singh and Surender Singh, have been found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, of murdering Randhir Singh and also attempting to murder his brother Ram Kishan. Both the offences were held to have been committed by the appellants in, furtherance of their common intention. For the offence of murker each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment of life, an,d, for the attempt to murder each has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, the sentences to run concurrently. After discussing the evidence, the judgment proceeded :(2) Counsel for the appellants maintained that in order to prove that the first information report had been recorded at the time noted, the daily diary and the copy of the first information report sent to the area Magistrate ought to have been produced. We have seen the daily diary, and it clearly mentions that the first information report was recorded at 5 a.m. We ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Mansa Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1977
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT214
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) respondent Mansa Devi, is the owner of premises No. 302, Teliwara, Delhi. That property was previously assessed for purpose of house-tax at the rateable value of Rs. 580.00 per annum. The corporation issued notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 thereinafter called 'the Act') to her proposing to raise the rateable value from Rs. 580.00 to Rs. 8320.00 w.e.f. 1-4-68. This notice proposing the enhancement was served on the respondent on 11-2-1969 and required her to file objections by 13-3-69. The ground mentioned for enhancement was that there had been construction on the second floor of the building and there had increase in rents. The respondent filed objections dated 24-2-1969 asserting that the proposed increase was arbitrary and that as a matter of fact she had let out this property to M/s. Goela Enterprises Private Limited at Rs. 80.00 p.m. only and as such the rateable value should be taken at the rate at which she had let it o...
Jaimal Singh MakIn Vs. the Official Liquidator of Majestic Financiers ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi169; [1978]48CompCas419(Delhi); 14(1979)DLT124; ILR1978Delhi267; 1978RLR137
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. Company Appeals Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 of 1969 have been placed before the Full Bench in view of the order of reference dated Oct. 17,1974 passed by S. N. Shankar and T.P.S. Chawla JJ.2. These appeals arise out of the order Dt. 4-2-1969 passed by the learned Company Judge (S. N. Andley, J. as his Lordship then was) in Company Petitions Nos. 70, 71, 68 and 69 of 1967 respectively.3. This order will dispose of all the four appeals as common question of law is involved.4. The facts of Company Petition 70 of 1967 alone are being stated here as they are sufficient to illustrate the common question of law arising in the aforesaid appeals.5. Majestic Finance Private Limited was ordered to be wound up by the order off the High Court of Punjab (Circuit Bench at Delhi) in Civil Original 31-D of 1964 by order dated 11-12-1964 passed by S. B. Capoor, J. The Official Liquidator filed a petition under S. 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act on 14-6-1967 for the recovery of Rs. 1,11,866.3...
invest Import, Beograd (Yugoslavia) Vs. WatkIn Mayors and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT17; ILR1978Delhi658; 1978RLR249
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The first appeal is directed against the final decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on August 24, 1966, in favor of the respondent herein and against the appellant and M/s. Raj Kumar Khanna and Sons.(2) The respondent M/s. Watkin Mayors and Co., filed a suit against the appellant. M/s. Invest Import, Beograd, and M/s. Raj Kumar Khanna and Sons through Raj Kumar Khanna or any other persons in charge of the business of the firm, claiming a permanent injunction against the aforesaid defendants restraining them from marking, importing, selling or offering for sale directly or through their agents or representatives chaff cutter knives and blades and/or other agricultural implements and machines or parts thereof with the name or picture of a Lion or one resembling a Lion. On the allegation that the defendants had marked, imported and sold chaff cutter knives and blades in violation of the plaintiff's registered trade mark thus causing loss to them, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »