Delhi Court July 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.
Devendra Kumar Shukla Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi538
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Shri Devendra Kumar Shukla for a suitably writ for quashing the revised seniority list as on 11-3-1974 in respect of Grade Iii of Indian Supply Service (Class 1) and for directing the Union of India (respondent No. 1) and the Director General of Supplies and Disposals (respondent No. 2) to re-draw the seniority list by showing the petitioner senior to respondents 7 to 29 in the seniority list as on 20-12-1968 and to give to the petitioner all consequential benefits pursuant to the revision of seniority. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed for directing the aforesaid respondents 1 and 2 to confirm the petitioner against the permanent post to which he was appointed.(2) The Union Public Service Commission is respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called 'the U.P.S.C.').(3) The petitioner is a direct recruit to the Service known as Indian Supply .Service, Class I (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.S.S.') i...
Manohar Singh and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-1977
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT37; ILR1978Delhi53
S. Rangarajan, J.1. Eight petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (New) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order, dated 20th October, 1976, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Shri. J.D. Kapur) holding that the presence of insect known as Makoda in the carbonated water known as Rim Zim sold to the Food Inspector Shri R. P. Singh, (P.W. 3) was prima facie sufficient ground to frame charge for selling adulterated carbonated water against all the eight of them.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19th May, 1973 the Food Inspector Shri R.P. Singh (P W. 3) saw a truck No. DLL 2222 carrying carbonated water parked in front of Kumar Cinema, Chandni Chowk and he contacted the driver-cum salesman Manohar Singh (petitioner/accused No. 1); after disclosing his identity as a Food Inspector he asked him to sell a sample of carbonated water. He saw one bottle of carbonated water 'Rim Zim' cont...
K.K. SarIn Vs. Meenakshi Datta Ghosh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi178
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The petitioner, K. K. Sarin, filed thispetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thatinasmuch as he has been illegally detained, a writ in the nature ofhabeas corpus be issued and it be ordered that he be set at liberty.Briefly, the contention was that the petitioner was being detained bythe second respondent Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, NewDelhi, by virtue of an illegal and invalid order passed by the firstrespondent, Mrs. Meenakshi Datta Ghosh, Additional District Magistrate (New Delhi) Delhi, under the Maintenance of Internal SecurityAct, 1971, hereinafter called the Act. It was prayed that the saidorder of detention be quashed and the petitioner be set at liberty.We accepted this petition and directed the release of the petitioner.We now proceed to record our reasons for our decision.(2) The petitioner is a citizen of India who was in February, 1977 working as a Director in the Planning Commission. An F.I.R. bearing No. 26 of 1977...
Autar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi92; 1978RLR405
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This case raises an interesting and important question of criminal procedure the uncommon factual backgrowid throws into sharp focus some legal cantours in this area, the visibility of which is likely to remain otherwise low. It seems necessary, thereforee, to set out the facts leading to the present petition at some length, to serve as the back drop against which a discussion of the legal question will become more meaningful.(2) The petitioner (Autar Singh) has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 Criminal Procedure Code . to quash the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Shri Kuldip Singh) on 3-5-1977 as one can find from the order-sheet pertaining to this case, incorporating the orders passed by him from time to time this is handwritten by the learned Magistrate : 'HE(the learned counsel for Smt. Veena Mehta) has moved an application. Issue summons to Autar Singh also because documents on file also warrant the summoning of Autar Singh as ...
Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ahmed
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1280; ILR1978Delhi225; 1978LabIC2026
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Cr. M(M) 461/76, 462/76, 463/76, 464/76 and 465/76 also.(2) The Union of India has filed this petition, after unsuccessfully moving the Additional Sessions Judge to enhance the sentence of fine of Rs. 75.00 alone imposed not only in this case but in each of the other five cases, the respondent Mohd. Ahmed, the proprietor of M/s. Awaz Khan Mohd. Ismail Khan, 2500 Ballimaran, Delhi having been convicted on his own plea of guilty under section 14(I-A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952.(3) It was not disputed that the respondent who had collected the employees' provident fund under the said Act did not pay the same to the Government as he was under a legal obligation to do. The learned Magistrate seems to have dealt with the matter in a very perfunctory manner and he did not even seem to be fully aware of the fact that he had to impose a minimum sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Section 14,...
Forasol Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi35; ILR1977Delhi501
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) In a world of interdependence and international markets foreign money and devaluation are raising problems both difficult and urgent for judges and lawyers. The case is concerned with one such question. (2) On July 30, 1962, the Government of India called for global tenders for drilling for the exploration of oil in Jaisalmer desert in Rajasthan. Farasol of Sevres (France) were one of those who tendered. Their tender was accepted by the Government of India. After some correspondence between the parties a contract was signed en February 17, 1964 called 'a Structural Drilling Agreement' between Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) and Forasol with regard to the work of drilling for the exploration of oil. (3) Initially the duration of the work under the contract was stated to be for a period of one year. But the contract provided for extension beyond the period of one year. As war between India and Pakistan broke out in September 1965 the work could not be c...
Mahabir Prasad Vs. V.K. Duggal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi605
Prakash Narain, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mahabir Parshad, the petitioner, challenges the validity of his detention in the Central Jail, New Delhi, under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act. We have already allowed the petition and now record our reasons.(2) According to the petitioner he is a citizen of India and is a Central Government employee. At the time of his arrest on January 27. 1977 he was working 'in the office of the Minister of External Affairs, New Delhi, as Additional Private Secretary to the then Minister of External Affairs.' On January 26, 1977 a First Information Report bearing No. 26 was lodged in Police Station, Srinivaspuri, against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Official Secrets Act read with Section 120B. Indian Penal Code. On January 27, 1977 the petitioner's house was searched but it is said nothing incr...
Moti Lal Vs. Manjit Singh Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR228
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is a revision under proviso to S. 25B(8) the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act). (2) One Jaswant Singh field an application for eviction under Section 25B on the allegation that he required bonafide the premises with the petitioner tenant. But before the matter could be concluded he died on 31-7-76. The. present application has been filed by Manjit Singh. Inderpal Singh who are sons of Jaswant Singh and Narinder Kaur his widow. This application was filed on 12.10,76. The petitioner tenant filed an application under Sec 25B(4) and (5) for leave to contest the application for eviction. Objection was taken that in view of the earlier application filed by Jaswant Singh the present application was incompetent. Objection was also taken that there was sufficient accommodation to meet the needs of the landlords. It was also pleaded that Narinder Kaur was riot owner and was merely the landlady and not owner and right under the will was given to her m...
L. Bansi Dhar and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi393; [1978]111ITR330(Delhi)
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J.(1) This is an application filed by the assessed, Lala Bansi Dhar and Sons, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the two Income-tax References Nos. 82 and 83 of 1973 relating to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1962-63 respectively, praying that this Court may grant an order of injunction restraining the Commissioner of Income-tax (1), Central Revenue, Building and/or his subordinate officers including the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle (III), from enforcing and/or Realizing the demand raised in the aforesaid assessment years 1960-61 and 1962-63, and from taking any steps for the recovery thereof till the disposal of the References pending in this Court. (2) For a proper appreciation of the above prayers, it is necessary to state the relevant facts. The assessed is a Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter referred to as the H.U.F). The karta of the H.U.F. is Lala Bansi Dhar. His father, Lala Murli Dhar, died in the year 1949 in an air-crash. On the...
Devi Singh Vs. Chaman Lal Itorora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi782; 1977RLR566
Rajindar Sachar, J. (Oral) (1) This is a petition under proviso to sub-section (8) of sectio2. (3) In pursuance of the summons served on the respondent tenant an application was filed in which the various pleas were taken in the affidavit by him. Objection was taken that notice has not been served as required by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as service was affected on 6-11-1975 while the respondent was asked to quit on 30-11-1975. Objection was also taken on the ground that the premises in dispute are not residential and the letting was not purely for residential purposes. Affidavit filed by the tenant mentioned that the son of the petitioner was also living in the lower portion of the house and was constructing his own building and if the landlord was moving to the lower portion and providing accommodation for his son in the portion in the first floor occupied by the tenant the same was not bona fide need. On a consideration of various facts, leave to contest th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »