Delhi Court February 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.
Mehta Teja Singh and Co. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi231
ORDER1. The petitioner M/s. Mehta Teja Singh & Co. are a firm of contractors (contractor). The respondent Union of India invited them to accept the work of construction of irrigation channels for equine breeding studs at Hissar. One of the items of this work was this:'Rough excavation in any soil (ordinary or hard) getting out and removal L Of' Spoil to a distance not exceeding 440 yards all as. specified.'2. The contractor executed the work. Payments were made to him from time to time. At the end of the work, in the final bill it was found that he was entitled to a balance sum of Rs. 12,782.09.3. At that stage the Union lodged a claim against the contractor. The claim was that as the contractor had been overpaid he should refund to them a sum of Rs. 50.478.15. The contractor denied the claim. The matter went to the arbitrator.4. Lt. Col. M. K. Bakshi, Commander Works Engineer was appointed as the arbitrator. He made the award on 1st June, 1973. On the claim of the Union for refund his...
Bhiku Ram JaIn Etc. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1995; ILR1977Delhi517; 1977RLR365
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) Since a common question of law, namely whether in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is it open to the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of the said Code or in the exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash a process issued against an accused-person or a charge framed against him, is involved in these cases it would be appropriate to dispose them of by a common judgment.(2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint against the petitioners in Cr. M. (M) 230 to 232, 240 of 1974, 80 and 218 of 1975 and others for offences under sections 7, 16 and 17 of the Pre- vention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein called 'the Act'). The complaints were filed through the Assistant Municipal Prosecutor. He being a public servant his statement was not recorded by the Magistrate under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein...
Zumard-ul-nisa Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi251; ILR1977Delhi312
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the decree of a Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing the appellant's suit.(2) According to the appellant she is the owner in possession of House No. X/1348 (Old), 2045 (New) in Gali Kalyan Pura. Delhi. She avers that she went for performing 'Haj' in July, 1947 and was thus abroad when the partition of India took place in the middle of August, 1947. On her return from pilgrimage she had to land in Karachi, by then in Pakistan, in November, 1947. She came back to Delhi in December, 1947 to her own house, namely, the house 'in suit, and has been living there in ever since. She admits that a part of the house is in the physical occupation of the tenant under her- Accordingly to the appellant one Nand Lal made a complaint to the Department of the Custodian of Evacuee Property early in 1949 to the effect that the appellant was an evacuee. This led to certain enquiries being made which showed that the appellant had never become an avacue...
Smt. Banyan Bai, Vs. Sohan Lal Behl S/O Late Shri Ganpat Rai Behl and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1977
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT69
B.C. Misra, J.1.This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant against the appellate decree of Mr. B.B. Gupta, Addl. Senior Sub Judge, dated 21st October, 1972, by which he has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order and decree of the Sub Judge, dated 15th March, 1972, directing the appellant here into deliver possession of the plot of land in dispute after demolishing the superstructure erected by him in addition to payment of mesne profits and costs. The matter is concluded by findings of fact and does not call for interference.2. Mr. Daya Kishan, Advocate, however, contends that he wishes to raise only the point that the plot of land in dispute is situated in slum area and so under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, it was not open to the respondent plaintiffs to institute the suit without first obtaining permission of the Competent Authority (Slums). This is a point which was never taken in the writ...
Dildar Ahmed and Ram Kartar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR389
F.S. Gill, J. (1) On 19.7.73, appellant Ram Kartar was driving a truck with 20 milk cans. 4 Food Inspectors took 4 samples from 4 milk cans. Driver on enquiry told Inspectors that Dildar Ahmed owned the truck and the milk. Both were prosecuted on the Sample being found adulterated and were convicted. Their first appeals were dismissed and they moved High Court with the grievance that is new Cr. P. C, 1973, had come into force they were not heard before sentence. Plea was negatived as prosecution had begun under old Act. After narrating above facts. Judgment para 15 onwards is :- (2) Now I come to the merits of the present case. First of all I will take up the case of Dildar Ahmed. Admittedly, he was not present at the time the samples were taken into possession. The prosecution case is that he was the owner of the truck in which 18 or more cans containing cow's milk were being carried. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no direct evidence to show that t...
Salim and Co. and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ240
ORDERF.S. Gill, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners Under Section 482 of the Cr.' P. C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of Shri J. D. Kapur, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dated 6th March, 1976 directing the framing of charges against the petitioners.2. On 20th July, 1974, Food Inspector S.K. Uppal went to the premises of Salim & Company at 562, Zerfasil Road and G.B. Road, Delhi and purchased 450 grams of 'Dhania' powder from Zehurud-din, petitioner No. 2, in the form of a sample. It was put. in three bottles, which were duly sealed after putting the necessary wrappers. One bottle was given to Zehuruddin petitioner, one was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and the third was retained by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated. A complaint Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was filed against Salim and Company, Zehuruddin, from w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›