Delhi Court May 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.
Indian Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ302Del
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The Industrial Tribunal, presided over by Shri D.D. Gupta, made an award dated 22nd October, 1974, on a reference made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1944. The terms of the reference were as follows:Whether Dearness Allowance payable to all categories of workmen employed in factory including general staff (employed in Delhi Branch) should be linked with consumer price index for industrial workers in Delhi prepared by Labour Bureau, Simla, from 1st July, 1973 as has been done in the case of office staff in Delhi Branch in pursuance of the award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 40 of 1970 and what directions are necessary in this respect?It is apparent from the wording of the reference that the question referred to the Tribunal referred to an earlier award being the one made by the Industrial Tribunal in respect of office staff employed by M/s. Indian Oxygen Limited. The only question to be decided on this reference, was whether the Dearness...
Gandhi Harijan Ucchtar Madhymik Vidyalaya and ors. Vs. Director of Edu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Delhi240
ORDER1. This petition, under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, By Gandhi Harijan Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, its Principal, and certain others, including the President of its Managing Committee, is directed against certain orders and directions of the Directorate of Education with regard to the management of the School and a notice from the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi requiring the Manager of the school to show cause why the management of the school be not taken over under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short, the Act).2. According to the petitioners, the school was started in the year 1965 by the Gandhi Harijan Shiksha Sabha, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, as a Middle School, with the object of imparting 'knowledge of vedic and Arya Samai text as laid down by its founder Maharishi Daya NandJi who had been the Pioneer for the cause of uplift of untouchability in India in Hindu society.' It is claimed tha...
Abdul Majid and ors. Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ239
ORDERF.S. Gill, J.1. Mohinder Kumar alias Mohinder Pal. Mool Chand and Jeet Ram alias Jeeta were committed to Sessions for trial Under Sections 304/326/323/34 of the I.P.C. When the trial was being held by Shri S. R. Joel, learned Additional Sessions Judge, and some prose caution evidence had been recorded, it was found by him that Jagan Lai Goel and Abdul Majid (the present petitioners) were also liable to be prosecuted qua the same offences as there was sufficient material to proceed against them. Both these petitioners were accordingly summoned by the learned trial Judge and charge-sheet was also later framed against them. When after the charge, evidence was being recorded afresh, the newly added accused i.e. the present petitioners, made an application to the trial court that the proceedings against them could not be continued, as they had not been committed to Sessions, but had been illegally summoned. They accordingly prayed for their discharge. The said application was dismissed...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.D. Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ122Del
ORDERD.K. Kapur, J.1. The present petition has been heard Along with a number of similar petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The second respondent in this case, Shri Chander Pal, applied under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, Delhi, claiming a sum of Rs. 6,200 on account of the fact that he was placed under suspension for 4 months in 1967-68, 8 months in 1972 and for one year and 12 daps from 9th January, 1974 to 21st January, 1975.2. The Delhi Transport Corporation, the petitioner in the present proceedings, contested the application, (a) on the ground that the application was not maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because the applicant was a 'motor transport worker' covered by the Motor Transport Workers' Act. 1961 and (b) on the ground that the laid workman was rightly paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, under the service regulations.3. In its decision, the Labour Court ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Memo Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-13-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi1; [1978]113ITR335(Delhi)
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.(1) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'Delhi Bench 'A' '; has referred the following two questions to this High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi:- '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was there an Association of Persons under the name and style of Delhi Beopar Mandal with R. B. Harish Chandra as member during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1952-53 ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that compensalion received by the three persons could not be included in the total income of the Association of Persons and that whether tax assessed on Association of Persons could not be realised from Memo Devi as a legal heir of late R. B. Harish Chandra ?' This case has a long history which has to be set out for a proper appreciation of the aforesaid questions. (2) The assessed before the I...
Municipal Corporation Vs. S.N. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR470
F.S. Deshpande, J.(1) If tenanted portion and another portion forms one dwelling house then eviction may be ordered. This revision petition is by the tenant against whom an order was passed by the Rent Controller refusing leave to defend and ordering the tenant to deliver possession of the premises to the respondent-landlord. The revision being under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25B, I have to see whether the order of the Rent Controller was according to law. (2) The pleading with which the landlord same to Rent Controller asking for eviction was (1) that the premises were residential, (2} that it was a dwelling unit and and (3) that it consisted of two rooms adjoining the courtyard and a latrine. The landlord also filed a map of the house which shows that these premises are a part of one whole house. The rest of of the house which was formerly let out for a residential purpose has already come into the possession of the landlord. The premises in dispute were let out to th...
Mukhtar Ahmed Vs. Masha Allah Begum
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi641
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) (ORAL).-THIS is a Revision under Section 25B, sub-section (8), of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, arising from an eviction petition brought under Section 14(1)(e) which, was tried under the new procedure. The Additional Rent Controller rejected the application for leave on the ground that it was belated. He then held that as there was no permission to defend the eviction petition, the provisions of Section 25B(4) had to apply and hence, eviction had to follow. There are two objections to the procedure adopted by the Additional ]Rent Controller. Firstly, it is submitted that the application for leave to defend was belated because the tenant was ill and hence, the application could not be filed within 15 days. It is submitted that the period could be extended. Regarding the other point, it is submitted that even if Section 25B(4) is applicable, still, the eviction order should not have been passed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the fact that the sale-deed wa...
Salwan Construction Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi748
Avadh Behart Rohatgi, J. (1) Taiwan Construction Company is a firm of builders and contractors (the builders). They entered into an agreement with the respondent Union of India for the construction of a multi-storeyed office building in New Delhi.(2) Union of India had invited tenders for this work. The work was confined to the construction of ground, first, second, third and fourth floors. The Government in its invitation for tenders had quoted their estimated cost of work. According to them this work was to cost Rs. 41,17,513.(3) The builders submitted their tender quoting 15.46 per cent above the estimated cost. Their tender was accepted, being the lowest. An agreement in writing was executed. Work was awarded to the builders on January 6, 1970.(4) In terms of the contract building work was to be commenced by the builders within 15 days from the date of the award of the work. The work was to be completed within a period of 18 months, that is, by July 20, 1971.(5) The builders starte...
Central Bank of India Vs. Current Transport Finance (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ266; 13(1977)DLT164; 1978RLR34
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) These are contempt of court proceedings. On 19/11/1974, Yogeshwar Dayal J. issued a notice to Kuldip Singh (defendant No. 7) calling upon him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for breach of the undertaking given to this court on 17/07/197 2/10/1972 and 4/05/1973.(2) On 26/05/1972, the Central Bank of India brought a suitfor the recovery of Rs. 4,73,873 against (1) Current Transport andFinance Private Limited, and (2) Current Transport Service and(3) the directors of the company. One of the directors admittedly isKuldip Singh, defendant No. 7. The suit is for the recovery ofmoney which the bank had advanced to the defendants on the hypothecation of the following five buses : (I)Vehicle No. Dlp 4128 make T.M.B. Model 1968 ChassisNo. 342.050.86.14299, engine No. 312.978.86.07011.(ii) Vehicle No. Dlp 4265 make T.M.B. Model 1969 ChassisNo. 342.050.86.14299, engine No. 312.978.86.14979.(iii) Vehicle No. Dlp 4383 make T.M.B. Model 1969 Chass...
B.R. Kundra and ors. Vs. Motion Pictures Association and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1977
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas536(Delhi); 13(1977)DLT176
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This order would dispose of C. As 720/76,736/76,737/76,103/77, 4/77 and 180/77 made in C.P. 32 of 1976. (2) C.P. 32 of 1976, a petition, under Sections 155, 397, 398 of theCompanies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act) by a member of Motion Pictures Association, a company incorporated under Section 25 of the Act(for short, the Company), with the purported support of more than therequisite number of members, as required under Section 399 of the Act,is based inter alia, on allegations of oppression of the minority by themajority in the control of the management of the company with a view,inter alia, to perpetuate the control of the group in power in the management of the company, to conduct the affairs of the comany in a partisanmanner so as to benefit the group in control and their supporters and toprejudice the interest of the minority and to take vindictive action, including action of expulsion from membership and other adverse actions in thematter of registration of Moti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›