Delhi Court August 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.
Padam Chand JaIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi116
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) The petitioner (Padam Chand Jain) is the father of Mukat Raj Jain, who has preferred this Criminal Revision against his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The son (Mukat Raj Jain), who was a major but under 21 years at the time of the commission of the offence, was dealt with under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed to be released on executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 for keeping good conduct for one year on, condition that he would appear in court to receive the punishment as and when required; in case he failed to execute the requisite bond he had to undergo R.I. for one year. The father (petitioner) was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for six months; the father filed an unsuccessful appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Shri P. K. B...
Modern Neon Signs Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi568
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) Messrs Modern Neon Signs, petitioner herein, entered info a contract with the Central Public Works Department (C.P.W.D.), New Delhi on August 30, 1958 for providing decorative lights in the entire area of the Exhibition Grounds, situate on the Mathura Road, in connection with the Exhibition (India)--1958. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties and they were referred to the arbitration of Mr. M.K. Koundinya. The arbitrator gave his award on November 7, 1975. The petitioner had raised several claims. The arbitrator allowed a sum of Rs. 8,336 as against the claim of Rs. 1,16,748.(2) To appreciate the point in issue, it will be useful to set out the relevant part (xf the award and it reads as follows :- 1. Claimant claims a sum of Rs.l234.00 as bal- The claim is justified for an ance payment due including the amount of amount of Rs. 1435.00 admit- the security deposit, ted by the respondent. 2. Claimant claims a sum of Rs. 15,...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Durga Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT377; 1978RLR25
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) This is a blatant case of fraud practiced on banks by their officials to the prejudice of the banks as well as the customer or the drawer of a cheque. The liability of the banks to the customer was never in doubt. But the further question how banks should deal with the bank officials who defraud both the banks and their customers also deserves to be considered. (2) The appeal is by the Punjab National Bank which was Defendant 1 in the suit filed by Durga Devi, Respondent 1 herein. Respondents 2 and 3. the National and Grindlays Bank Limited and Shri Satya Pal Madan were Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. A decree for Rs. 18,000 against the National and Grindlays Bank has been passed but the said Bank has not appealed against it. The Punjab National Bank and S. P. Madan have been held to be jointly and severally liable with the National and Grindlays Bank to pay these Rs, 18,000. Further, they are also held liable to pay. Rs. 2.835 as interest on these Rs. 18,000. Th...
V.C. Shukla and Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR75
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) An Fir was registered against petitioners etc. about offences relating to film 'Kissa Kursi Ka', on 13.4.77. During investigations M/s Khedkar and Yadav applied for recording their confessions and Chief Metropoliton Magistrate (C.M.M.) sent these to an M.M. The latter recorded these u/s 164, Cr. Pc on 3/4.6.77. Then on 14.7.77, charge sheet was was filed against petitioners before C.M.M. The same day C.M.M. granted pardon to M/S Khedkar and Yadav u/s 306, Cr PC. C.M.M. also ordered that charge-sheet be registered and accused be summoned for 5.8.77. Petitioners challenged this order on the ground that S. 204, Cr Pc applied to initiation of proceedings on police report u/s 190(1)(b) as much it applies to complaint u/s 190(1)(a); that C.M.M. had no material for forming opinion and he had only police allegations: that C. M. M. acted mechanically on the allegations without applying his mind; that order about issue of process u/s 204 Cr Pc is not a speaking order; that...
Hanuman Pershad Etc. Vs. Chuni Alias Chuni Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT226
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of an Additional District Judge, Delhi, passed on April 12, 1965 apportioning compensation between Shri Hanuman Pershad and his sons Krishan Kumar and Anil Kumar on the one hand and Shri Chuni on the other. Shri Hanuman Pershad and his sons were the owners of the land whereas Shri Chuni claimed that he was a tenant.(2) Land measuring 100 bighas 18 bids was in Village Rajpur Chhavani was notified for acquisition for Planned Development of Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on March 3, 1963. The declaration under Section 6 was published on May 29, 1963. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award on November 21,1963. With regard to land comprised in Khasra No. 122 the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was Rs. 13,381.40. Inasmuch as there was dispute between the owners of the land and the tenant as to apportionment, a reference was made under Sections 3...
Doctor Pesi Eduijee Mehta Vs. Additional District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi595; 1978RLR49
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The petitioner Doctor Pesi Eduljee Mehta is a' consultant engineer by profession. He is in detention. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of his detention.(2) The Additional District Magistrate, Delhi, Mr. V. K. Duggal, passed an order of detention on April 18, 1977 under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, (26 of 1971) (the Act), directing that the petitioner be detained on the ground that it was necessary to do so 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of India'. Immediately he was served with the grounds. of detention dated April 18, 1977.(3) The substance of the grounds of detention is that Doctor Mehta is the agent of a foreign power and the kingpin of a conspiracy. He was obtaining by surreptitious means information and documents' in the possession of various Government officials of this country and was secretl...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1977
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT56; [1978]41STC30(Delhi)
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a declaration that the provisions of clauses (e), (e) and (g) of section 2 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, are ultra virus of article 285 of the Constitution of India and prays for striking down the said provisions as void. The impugned provisions are : 'SECTION 2(c) 'Business' includes- (i) any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture whether or not such trade, make gain or profit and whether or not any gain or profit accrues from such trade, commerce manufacture, adventure or concern, and (ii) any transaction in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern ; (e) 'dealer' means any person who carries on business of selling goods in Delhi and includes- (i) the Central Government or a State Government carrying on such business; (ii) an incorporated society (including a co-oper...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bawa Raghbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR201
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) Respondent plaintiff was granted lease of a plot in 1941 by Delhi Improvement Trust in Pahar Gunj for construction of shop and residence without specifying which portion would be used as shop. The plaintiff let out 1st floor to a 'Bank' and D.D.A. objected to it and besides levying penalty threatened cancellation of lease. Plaintiff Sued for Injunction which was dismissed by trial Court but was decreed in appeal. D.D.A. then filed R.S.A. High Court held that as the lease did not specify as to which portion or floor was to be used for shops and residence, the lessee could use any portion for any purpose. After giving above facts, judgment para 6 onwards is :- (2) In the sense that the restriction in this case is only regarding the utilization of the property as shops and residential flat, it must be said that the building cannot be used for any other purpose and it is only a user contrary to this restriction which can lead to conclusion that the convenant has been inf...
Sheochand Ram Prasad Vs. Savitri Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR71
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) Suit premises is a room in a residential building It was being used as a godown by petitioner. Landlady's husband was an employee of Mcd and was allotted a quarter. His allotment was cancelled and he sued petitioner u/s 14 A of Rent Act. Tenant sought leave to defend on the ground that premises was not residential Permission was refused and he approached High Court.] Judgment, para 4 onwards is :- (2) Thus, the conflict between the two parties was whether the property in question could be deemed to be residential property or, whether it was non-residential property. It is the common case of both the parties that the property is in fact used as a godown and from the plan filed in the case, seems to be entirely suited as a godown. Still, it is possible for even property which has been let for non- residential purposes to be deemed to be residential property within the meaning of Section 14A of the Act. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Section 14A is n...
Jitendar Singh Vs. Manmohan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1977
Reported in: 1977RLR522
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) After hearing the counsel the revision petition is admitted to hearing. (2) This revision petition by the tenant has been filed against the order of the trial court refusing him leave to contest the application filed by respondent-landlord. (3) The eviction was filed by the respondent-landlord. The landlord is an old man of 74 years. His case in the eviction application is that he had been living with his son at Hardwar for the last number of years. But that be cause of the heart trouble he is required to shift for medical attention and treatment at Delhi. His case further is that he requires the ground floor premises in suit for his personal need, because he is advised not to climb the stair case. It appears that on the first floor of the said property landlord's daughter who is alleged to be his tenant is living. (4) In response to the summons of the eviction application the petitioner-defendant filed an application under section 25B for leave to contest. Apar...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »