Delhi Court February 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.
Baburao Chandavar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1980
ORDERF.S. Gill, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Shri K. B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he had maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Rule 43 of the defense and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and also Under Section 188 of the I.P.C. He had, of course, affirmed the sentence of imprisonment under the latter charge, but had reduced the one under the former.2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with others had, on 2-10-1975, raised objectionable slogans in disobedience to a prohibitory order promulgated by the District Magistrate Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was done at Gandhi Samadhi, Raj Ghat, Delhi, just after the prayer meeting. It is further alleged that by raising those slogans, the appellant brought into contempt the lawfully constituted Government of India and incited disaffection towards it by acting in a manner as to cause fear...
Saiyed Mushtaq Ali Khan Vs. National Fire and General Insurance Co. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi699
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This application which came up for hearing before us on February 7, 1977 after notice to M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. was dismissed by us by staling that for reasons to be recorded hereafter the application is dismissed. We now proceed to record our reasons.(2) The appellant/applicant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 52,928.66 against M/s. National Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi.During the pendency of the suit M/s. National Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. was amalgamated into the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. and thus ceased to exist as an independent legal entity. This amalgamation was ordered by the Bombay High Court. On July 20, 1963 the applicant (the plaintiff in the suit) moved an application in the court of the Commercial Sub-Judge, 1st Class. Delhi, slating that inasmuch as the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. was the successor company of the original defendant, the National Fire & Insurance Co. ...
Bahadur Singh JaIn Vs. Ram Sunder
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR247
B.C. Misra, J. (1) [RESPONDENT was tenant in a shop owned by appellant. Parties agreed before Rent Controller to repairs of shop by appellant in a week at an expense of Rs. 480.00 on 17.8.66. There was extention of time and it was last done on 2.9.66. Repairs could not be completed until 27.9.66 and then tenant carried out the same himself. Then on 2.2.67, plaintiff sued appellant for Rs. 3,500.00 as damages @ Rs. 150.00 per day for period when shop remained under repairs, Rs. 800.00 for value of goods lost due to theft facilitated by removal of door for repairs and for value of material supplied for repair. Trial Court dismissed the suit but in 1st appeal is was held that landlord had taken at least 16 days extra while doing repairs and shop remained without doors and tenant was entitled to Rs. 25 for each extra day as damages and passed a decree for Rs. 375.00. The landlord appealed to High Court.] Judgment, para Ii onwards is :- (2) With regard to the quantum of damages, it may be o...
Kalyan Singh Vs. J.P. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR242
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision has been filed u/s 25B(8) by the tenant against the order of controller dated 1-5-76 by which he has refused leave to contest and has passed order for eviction against petitioner on the ground mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section 14 of the Act. (2) The material facts of the case are that the respondent landlord instituted a petition for eviction on llth December, 1975 for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and bonafide personal necessity being respectively mentioned in clauses (a) and (e) of the relevant proviso Notice of the application was issued to the petitioner before me in the ordinary way and not according to the summary procedure. When the petitioner tenant appeared before the Controller, the respondent landlord gave up the ground mentioned in clause (a) and elected to prosecute the ground mentioned in clanse (e) only. The petition was thereforee tried in a summary manner. In the application for leave, which is suppor...
A.R. Joshi Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1977
Reported in: [1980(41)FLR315]; ILR1977Delhi750; (1978)ILLJ48Del
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) On December 24, 1951, the petitioner A. R. Joshi, was employed by the Imperial Bank of India as a cashier and teller. On January 1, 1953, he was confirmed in that post. In 1955 the State Bank of India Act (Act 23 of 1955) (the Act) was passed. The State Bank was constituted to carry on the business of banking and to transfer to it the undertaking of the Imperial Bank of India (Section 3(1) ). The service of existing officers and employees of the Imperial Bank of India was transferred to the State Bank (section 7). The petitioner's services were also transferred.(2) On August 27, 1962, the petitioner was promoted to the post of head cashier and was posted at Dalhousic. That very day he executed a contract of service.(3) In 1967 the bank found that the petitioner had permitted drawings without adequate stock in cash credit accounts to two firms, namely, M/s. Teja Singh & Sons and Industrial Saw Mills and had valued pledged stocks at rates higher than the mark...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Shrit. S. Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT100; 1977RLR153
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25B of t Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the Act) is directed against an order of the Third Additional Rent Controller refusing leave to the petitioner to contest the respondent's application under sub-section (5) of Section 25B of the Act for the eviction of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. (2) The petition was filed in the following circumstances. T. S. Bhatia, respondent is admittedly the owner of the property in dispute. He was in Government service and retired in the year 1967. The property was built in 1969 and let out to the petitioner for the residence of its officers in 1970. It currently carries a monthly rental of Rs. 1350. The respondent has been living in a rented accommodation on a monthly rental of Rs. 450. The landlord of the respondent filed an application for the eviction of the respondent in 1975. The respondent filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner...
Model Press (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi44; ILR1977Delhi462; 1977RLR195
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against a very short order passed by the Subordinate Judge trying the civil suit. The order in question was passed on an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order reads:- 'HEARD.Notice be directed to the defendant on P.F. for 7-4-76.'The case of the petitioner is that in the circumstances of the case notice alone should not have issued but, an ex-parte order should also have been passed. The injunction prayed for in the suit was one to restrain the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from collecting property taxes in relation to some premises situated at Jhandewalan in New Delhi. It can hardly be denied that the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure are in the following terms :- 'THECourt shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction...
S.S. Makhijani Vs. V.K. Jotwani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi769; 1977RLR207
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a petition for revision under proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act as amended, hereinafter called 'the Act', on behalf of Shri S. S Makhijani against the order dated July 8, 1976 passed by Shri R. K. Saim. Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing his application for leave to defend a petition filed against him by Shri V. K. Jotwani, landlord, under section 14A(1) of the Act.(2) The respondent-landlord filed a petition on or about 14-1-1976 against the petitioner under section 14A(1) of the Act wherein the landlord pleaded that he was the owner of house No. 185-A, Block No. 30, New Double Storey Quarters, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It was further pleaded by the respondent that he is in occupation of official residential accommodation bearing No. D-11-260, Vinay Marg, ChanKyapuri, New Delhi, allotted to him by the Centra) Government and has now been required by the Government, in pursuance of the general notification dated 9-9-197...
Shushil Kumar Dang Vs. Prem Kumar Dang
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT279
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a wife's appeal from the decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed by the Additional District Judge on January 30, 1974, against her. (2) The appellant Sushil Kumari was married to the respondent Prem Kumar on February 25, 1970. The husband is 32 years of age. Nearly same is the age of the wife. Both of them are lower division clerks. They are getting about Rs. 400/ or Rs. 450/per month as pay. (3) The husband and wife lived together till July 15, 1970. This is admitted on all hands. The case of the husband is that on July .16, 1970, the wife left his house in the morning to join her duties at .the office. She did not come back to his house in the evening. Thereafter she never came back to the matrimonial home. (4) At the time the wife left the house on July 16, 1970, she was in the family way. In February 1971, when the husband and wife were living apart a daughter was born to the. .wife. That girl today is five years of age. She is living wi...
Mathur Aviation Vs. Lt. Governor, and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1977
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ255Del
Dalip K. Kapur, J.1. On 17th August, 1972, under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi of an industrial dispute said to exist between the management of M/s. Mathur Aviation and its workman Captain Narinder Singh. The terms of the reference set out in the schedule were:1. Whether the termination of Services of Captain Narinder Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?2. Whether the workman is entitled to Bonus for 1969-70, 1970-71, T.A./D.A., spray charges, etc. and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?A number of preliminary objections were taken before the Industrial Tribunal as to the maintainability of the reference which led to the framing of the following preliminary issues:1. Whether Capt. Narinder Singh is a 'workman' or not?2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction or not to entertain this claim?3. Whether the dispute is an industri...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »