Delhi Court August 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.
K.C. Gehani Vs. Parvati Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR68
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This order will dispose of C. Rs. 286 and 559 of 1977. An application for eviction was filed by the respondent landlady seeking eviction as the premises were required on the ground of bonafide need. The eviction application was filed on 9-7-1976 under S. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent C mirol Act (hereinafter to be called the Act). In response to the summons the petitioner tenant filed an application under Section 25B of the Act seeking leave to defend the eviction application. Along with the application the petitioner filed an affidavit date 1 7-9-1976 giving reasons why leave to defend-should be granted. The said affidavit was verified by the petitioner as true to the best of his knowledge and belief. It is not disputed that the affidavit was filed in time as prescribed under the Act. The respondent landlady in reply to this affidavit look one preliminary objection that the affidavit filed by the petitioner tenant was not verified in accordance with law and in fac...
Ram Murti and ors. Vs. Anil Sashi Gore and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1177; ILR1977Delhi341
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order 30-5-1977 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi (Shri Mohd. Shamim) allowing the application by Durga Dutt Vasudeva as a power of attorney agent of a private limited company, Pressure Cookers and Appliances Private Limited, to continue the complaint already instituted on behalf of the said company, filed by its power of attorney agent, Anil Sashi Gore, who has since resigned from the company and joined yet another company. The prosecution was for offences said to have been committed under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act read with section 120 1. .P. C. (2) It is needless to be detained with substantial averments concerning the commission of the said offences which are matters for the trying Magistrate to decide upon. It is sufficient for the purpose of this petition to merely note t...
i.D. Garg and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi517B
H.L. Anand, J.(1) The principal question that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by 8 Assistant Directors /Assistant Executive Engineers of Central Water & Power Commission (Water Wing), Government of India, raises is as to whether the seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondents 4 to 232 could be legitimately determined on the basis of their respective length of service, as claimed by the Union of India or in accordance with the date of their confirmation in service, as contended on behalf of the petitioners. The petition raises certain subsidiary questions as well.(2) It is a common case of the parties that, even though the said respondents were appointed against temporary posts of Assistant Directors/Assistant Executive Engineers in the Central Water & Power Commission earlier in point of time than the petitioners, the petitioners were confirmed against permanent posts earlier than the said respondents, some of whom still continue to work against temp...
Taqween Raza Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi121
F.S. Gill, J.(1) As identical questions of law are involved in Criminal Misc. (Main) 251 of 1977 and Criminal Misc. (Main) 374 of 1977, they will be disposed of by this one judgment. (2) The facts of the first petition are : (3) A case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Taqween Raza petitioner for the alleged murder of one Saleem Raza. The petitioner surrendered before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 18-12-1976 and prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail. The bail was, however, declined on the same day. Thereafter, on that very day the Ilaqa Magistrate 'remanded the petitioner to police custody for the purpose of investigation. (4) After investigation, the police report under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 16-2-1977. On behalf of the accused, it was urged that the challan in the court had been filed on the 61st day of the arrest and, thereforee, under section 167(2) proviso ...
Greysham and Co. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1977
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ95Del
S.S. Chadha, J.1. The question raised in this writ petition is whether the so-called ' Inam' under the incentive scheme introduced in pursuance of a voluntary settlement reached between the petitioner and its employees and recorded on 26th October, 1956, is a part of ' basic wages' for the purpose of calculating the contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass and many now be stated. In 1961, the petitioner was brought within the purview of the Act and the Scheme framed there under. Section 6 of the Act provides for the contribution of the employer and the employees and this contribution is a specified percentage of the basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance for the time being payable to each of the employees. An employer to whom the Act applies is under a duty, in view of para 30 of the scheme to pay both its share and employees' share of the contribu...
Balchand Choraria Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT348
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is a petition for a writ of habeas Corpus praying that the petitioner who has been ordered to be detained under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be called COFEPOSA) and is at present lodged in Tihar Jail, Delhi should be set at liberty.(2) Earlier the petitioner had been arrested under Section 3(1) of Cofeposa in pursuance of a detention order dated 19-12-1974 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. The said detention was challenged by the petitioner's wife by means of C.A. 320 of 1975 in the High Court of Bombay and the same was quashed by the judgment of 1-7-1975. On 30-7-1975 the Central Government passed an order stating that whereas with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange, it was necessary to make an order under Section 3 of Cofeposa and it directed that the petitioner be detained and kept in custo...
Raghbir Singh and ors. Vs. Budh Singh Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi86; 13(1977)DLT196
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The decision of this appeal turns on the construction of a will made by a Hindu testator. One Chaudhary Zaharia Mall made this will on 23-3-1967. After his death, one of his sons, Budh Singh, filed a suit for partition against the other sons and daughters of the testator without disclosing 'the will and on the ground that the succession, to the property of late Zaharia Mall would be intestate. The suit was contested by the other three sons of the testator, the daughters remaining ex parte. The contesting sons set up the will and pointed out that Budh Singh had been excluded from succession to the testator by the said will. The plaintiff Budh Singh 586 filed a replication in, which the factum and the validity of the will was denied. Alternatively, however, it was pleaded that even according to the alleged will Budh Singh was entitled to l/6th share in the property. The parties did not adduce any evidence and the court first decided only the following question of la...
Nirmala Vs. Vasdev Pardasani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR97
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) (PARTIES were married on 14.11.60 and lived togather for a month. Wife returned in Oct., , and again left in May, 62. Then she returned after 7 years in 1969 and stayed for 2 years and left again in Nov., 71 and never returned thereafter. Husband sued her and trial Court upheld his plea of desertion for more than 2 years. Wife appealed to High Court.) The judgment, para 8 onwards is : (2) There is no evidence to show that there was anything in the conduct of the husband which prevented her from joining the matrimonial home. There is no suggestion by her that it was any other apprehension which prevented her from going back to her husband's home. The only reason given was that it was a matter of prestige because husband did not come to take her back. In this connection one should bear in mind that the husband had gone in 1961 and 1969 to bring back the wife; it cannot be thus said that the husband had deliberately made it a point not to bring her back. Evidently ...
Mohan Lal Goela Vs. Siri Krishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi92
5. shad Gupta before the Rent Controller. That Petition was founded on two grounds: (1) non-payment of rent and (2) sub-letting of premises. The Additional Controller by his order dated March 12, 1968 dismissed the petition. Rent was paid. thereforee, that ground did not survive. Sub-letting was held not proved.6. Against the order dismissing the Petition the landlord went in appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. On May 7,1988 the appeal was filed. As it happened the tenant Shiv Perahad died on July 30, 196& The landlord thereforee 'withdrew the appeal on Sept. 12. 1968. His counsel made a statement before the Tribunal that as nothing devolved heirs of the tenant he would like to withdrew the appeal. The appeal accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.7. On Nov. 2, 1968, the present suit for Possession and mesne Profits was brought, as I have said. The plaintiff's case in the plaint is that Shiv Pershad Gupta was his tenant, that his tenancy was terminated by a notice to quit; that as Shiv Pe...
Raj Prakash Varshney Vs. Addl. District Magistrate, New Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi17
ORDER1. The petitioner Raj Prakash Varshney who was being detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi by virtue of and under an order passed by respondent No. 1 under S, 3 (1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 197L hereinafter referred to as the Ala, by this petition under Am 226 of the Constitution of India prayed that a writ in the nature of habeas corpus be issued to respondents 1. 2, 3 and 7 with the direction that he be set at liberty. We have already allowed the petition and now proceed to record our reasons.2. The petitioner is a citizen of India and was detained in the Central Jail Tihar, New Delhi, under authority of an order dated Apr. 21, 1977 (Copy Annexure P. 1) made by respondent No. 1, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-clause (1) of clause (a) of sub-see. (1) of S. 3 of the Act. Originally, the petitioner was arrested on February 4, 1977 in connection with the investigation of F. I, R. 26/1977 lodged in Police Sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »