Delhi Court March 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.
S.B. Lall and anr. Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, New Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi236; 13(1977)DLT232; ILR1977Delhi164
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises only one question, namely, whether rule 25 or any of its sub-rules of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, is ultravires the rule making power postulated by Section 97 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. (2) The facts material for the purposes of this case arc as stated hereafter. (3) Petitioner No. 1, S. B. Lall, claims himself to be a member of petitioner No. 2, which is a housing society registered as a Co-operative Society under the relevant law. This Society was incorporated in 1950 having been registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi, on December 9, 1950. In the middle of 1951, the society acquired by purchase land in Mohammadpur Munirka, a revenue estate in the Union Territory of Delhi. A portion of the land acquired by petitioner No. 2 was notified turn acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Th...
Raj Hans Press Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1977
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ524Del
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This is a writ petition to challenge an award made by Shri K.S. Sidhu, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Delhi. The dispute referred to the Court was concerned with whether the termination of services of certain workmen employed by Raj Hans Press was illegal or unjustified, and if so, what relief should be given. By means of the award under challenge, the Labour Court held that the termination of services of all the workmen was illegal and void and they were entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.2. The only challenge to the award, as far as I can make out in this petition, is as to whether the Labour Court was right in holding the termination of services to be illegal because it contravened Section 23F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner rests on the contents of the letter of termination which based the termination on the fact that the machine binding composing depart...
Raj Parkash Vs. Mangat Ram Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi1; ILR1977Delhi412; 1977RLR440
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This first appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, who declded the suit between the parties on the Original Side of the High Court. The appeal, preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge delivered on December 15. 1972. was admitted on February 28, 1973. That appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (Coram : S. N. Andley. C. J. and Prakash Narain. J.). The Bench by its order of April 30, 1974 framed an additional issue and remanded the case back to the learned single Judge for a finding on the said issue and disposal of the suit thereafter. The second judg-ment in consequence of the remand order was delivered on January 27. 1975. The matter thereafter came up before us. (2) The plaintiff/appellant produces and markets a toy called a viewer. This viewer uses a 35 mm. medially cut positive film on which are printed one or more pictures viewed through a lens fitted in a viewer specially adapted fo...
Atma Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi718
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) By this application the petitioner has prayed that judgment dated August 4, 1976 be reviewed in that the provisions of Section 360(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'new Code') were not taken into consideration in coming to the conclusion whether it was a fit case where the relief envisaged by the aforesaid section should be granted to the petitioner or not.(2) Shri D. R. Sethi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that before sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment it was obligatory on the court to consider whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of benefit of Section 360(1) of the new Code and this having not been done, the sentence awarded to the petitioner stood vitiated.(3) Shri H. R. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing for the State urged that the aforesaid provisions of law were not attracted in the instant case, in that, the occurrence took place on 21st April, 1970, the trial ...
Hari Chand and Raj Pal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi367
F.S. Gill, J. (1) The petitioners, who have approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. (Main) 99 and Iii of 1977 for the grant of bail, are accused in the same case and were also arrested on the E same day. Both these petitions will, thereforee, be disposed of by this one order. (2) A case under sections 395/397, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code . was registered in Police Station Nangloi on 29-12-1975. Hari Chand, Raj Pal and Dharam Pal, the present petitioners, are also accused in the said case. During the investigation, they were arrested on 14-9-1976. The police filed an 'incomplete challan' in the Court of the Magistrate against seven accused, including the three petitioners. (3) These applications are for the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that no police report, as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has so far been filed by the Officer in charge of the Police Station. What has been forwarded to the Magist...
Vishal Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi724; 1977RLR347
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This suit raises a text-book question. The conditions of sale at an auction sometimes provide : 'No person shall retract his bidding'. What is the effect of this The facts:(2) MESSRS. Vishal Builders (P) Ltd., (the Builders) the plaintiff,are a company of engineers and contractors. The defendant Delhi Development Authority (The Authority) is a statutory corporation constituted under s. 3 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (The Act). It is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable. It can sue and be sued in it' name. The objects of this Authority are to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to plan (s. 6).(3) There is an area in District Centre Kalkaji which has been named by the Authority as Nehru Place. The Authority advertised the sale of perpetual leasehold rights of land in this area by action for building multi-storeyed commercial flats b...
Shri 108 Swami Ganesh Dass Ji UdasIn Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi171
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) By this writ petition, the petitioner prays that order dated 31st January, 1969, passed by respondent No. 1, Chief Settlement Commissioner, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation, Annexure 'U', be set aside and that an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued to the respondents asking them to carry out order dated 15th April, 1957, Annexure 'J', passed by Shri M. D. Sharma. Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property-cum-Settlement Officer, whereby the petitioner was held entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 1,31,992 as compensation in the shape of property out of the compensation pool against his verified claims. (2) Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be recorded here. One Swami Harnam Dass Ji belonging to Udasin sect of Sadhus is alleged to have owned a large number of properties of his own in Sukkur (Sind) and at other places in West Pakistan, mentioned, in list, Annexure 'A'. According to the petitioner the Sadhus belonging to the sect ...
Ramjas Foundation Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi261; 14(1978)DLT45; ILR1977Delhi371
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) There are a good number of schools and colleges in Delhi. Some of these are managed and run by the Ramjas Foundation. The Foundation has brought this suit for a declaratory decree against the Union of India, the Principal defendant to the suit. (2) Ramjas Foundation is an educational charitable institution. At present it runs 15 schools and one post-graduate college in Delhi. Thousands of students are studying in these institutions. They all bear the name of Ramjas. The founder of these institution was one Rai Sahib Kedar Nath. (3) Rai Kedar Nath retired as a District Judge in 1911 from the Punjab Judicial Service. He was childless. To perpetuate the memory of his father Lala Ramjas Mal, he thought of starting educational institutions. He made a modest beginning. He started a school in Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Delhi in 1912. Thereafter he acquired large tracts of land by purchase. By three sale deeds dated August 25, 1915, December 21, 1915 and Decemb...
Narang Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Mehar Chand Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR360
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted by the principal defendant in a suit for possession of two plots bearing Nos 22 and 27 situated at Wazir Nagar, Kotia Mubarkpur, New Delhi. The suit is really one for ejectment based on a lease of two vacant plots which had been let out by the plaintiff, Shri. Mehar Chand Kohli to M/s Narang Overseas Private Limited. The agreement shows that plot No. 22 and half of plot no. 27 was covered by the agreement and the rent was Rs. 60.00per month for one year from 1st August. 1967 to 31st July, 1968. Advance rent was paid for the whole year on 12th August, 1967. At the end of the agreement, the following words occur :- 'THISagreement will be renewed after expiry of one year and one month's Notice is necessary for both parties in case of getting the plot vacated.'On the basis of this agreement the plaintiff terminated the lease by giving one month's notice expiring on 31st July, 1968. The tenant did not give up vacant possession...
Chum Lal Vs. Sukh Devi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR58
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) The petitioner instituted a suit for possession of a shop 5039, Dina Nath Building, Pahargunj Delhi and for Rs. 2,410.20 on account of arrears of rent. The claim in the suit was that late Babu Ram was the tenant whose tenancy had been terminated during his life time. Now possession and arrears of rent and damages were claimed from the heirs and L.R's of said Babu Ram. Value for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction was fixed at Rs 1000.00 for relief of possession.(2) Defendants 3 and 4 claimed that the suit was not properly valued. This led to the framing of the issue 'whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court free and jurisdiction.(3) The contention of the plaintiff was that the suit fell within S. 7(xi)(cc) of Court fees Act, but defendants urged that the suit had to be valued U/S 7(v) and thus court fee had to be paid on market value of the property. Trial court held that S. 7(xi) applied only in a suit between a landlord and tenant holding over a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »