Delhi Court September 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.
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Surendra Kumar Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi785; 1978RLR537
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 6 of 1976 to 13 of 1976 have been filed on behalf of the Delhi Transport Corporation against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 6th November, 1975 passed in Civil Writs Nos: 1179/74, 1144/74, 1200/74, 1150/74, 1536/74, 1123/74, 1199/74 and 762/74 respectively, whereby the learned single Judge accepted the writ petitions and quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners impugned in the aforesaid writ petitions.(2) By the same judgment, the learned single Judge also disposed of the other two writ petitions, namely, 1092 of 1974 and 1458 of 1974. Lpa 21 of 1976 has been filed by Bhim Singh against the- dismissal of his writ petition No. 1092 of 1974 and Lpa 23 of 1976 has been filed by Jagannath Prasad against the dismissal of his writ petition No. 1458 of 1974.(3) This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid ten Letters Patent Appeals.(4) It seems that disciplinary action was initiated against the pe...
Udham Badwani and ors. Vs. Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi68
V.S. Deshpande, J. 1. The relevant facts of the writ petition and the reasons which led its reference to a Full Bench may briefly be stated. When the writ petition was filed, the petitioners and respondents 5 to 39 were Assistant Engineers serving the Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. While all the petitioners were appointed by direct recruitment, the first five of them are holders of diplomas in engineering while the others are holders of degrees in engineering. Respondents 5 to 39 who were already in the service of the Corporation were appointed as Assistant Engineers by promotion as distinguished from the petitioners who were appointed by direct recruitment. The petitioners are, thereforee, direct recruits while these respondents are promotees. 50 per cent of the total number of posts of Assistant Engineers are to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion.2. Some of the petitioners were appointed in 1962 and the others in ...
N.S. JaIn Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi327; 1978RLR442
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 201, 225, 238, 241, 250, 251, 252 and 283 of 1975 since these arise from the same facts.(2) The salient facts of the case as disclosed by the record are that on December 4, 1973 Dr. N. S. Jain, a well-known Eye Specialist of Delhi, came back to his house No. D-29L defense Colony, New Delhi, at about 7-15 P.M. He asked his wife Vidya Jain to get ready for a visit to his sister residing in C-489, defense Colony. They were to go in their fiat car No. Dlv 4847 which was parked near the ga,te of the adjoining house No. D-292. After a few minutes the couple came out of the house. While Dr. Jain med towards the right of the car to open' its door his wife proceeded towards its left. Before Dr. Jain could unlock the door he noticed that his wife was missing. He went to the left side of the car and saw a prostrate figure lying in the nearby storm water drain. Just then a man jumped out of the drain, flourished a pistol at Dr....
S. Jagat Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi582
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant against the Union for recovery of Rs. 67,000 on the basis of a contract for the construction of certain works and in the alternative on the basis of quantum remit. The claim was contested by the Union, inter alia, on the plea of bar of limitation. The Union also set up a counter claim. The trial Court dismissed the claim of the appellant, both on the merits and on account of the bar of limitation. The counter-claim of the Union prevailed with the result that the appellant, who came to the Court with a claim of Rs. 67,000 against the Union, got in return a decree against him for Rs. 49,759.12 with costs.(2) According to the appellant, the appellant entered into a contract with the Government of India for the construction of two additional wings in the Rangers College at Dehradun (Ex.D-l/A). 'The tender was formally accepted on behalf of the Governor General of India in Council by the then Additional Chief Enginee...
A.K. Ahluwalia Vs. N. Kanta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1977
Reported in: 1978RLR36
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This first appeal u/s 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended in 1976 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been filed by husband against the decree of Shri K.B. Andley, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 14th March, 1977 by which he has annulled the marriage on the ground of impotency mentioned in S. 12(l)(a).(2) Appellant, and the respondent were married on 27th February, 1975 and they spent about 22 nights toghether spread over a period up to May, 1975 including two nights soon after the marriage at Akbar Hotel, The case of the respondent/wife is that the husband was impotent at the time of his marriage and has continued to be so and he has never consummated the marriage with her The petition was filed by the wife for annulment of the marriage and in the alternative for judicial separation under Sections 12 and 10 of the Act respectively. With the amendment of the Act in the year 1976 the wife amended her petition and claimed annulment of marriage and i...
Udham Dadhwani and ors. Vs. Union Public Service Commissions ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1977
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi30
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The relevant facts of the writ petition and C the reasons which led its reference to a Full Bench may briefly be stated. When the writ petition was filed, the petitioners and respomdents 5 to 39 were Assistant Engineers serving the Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. While all the petitioners Were appointed by direct recruitment, the first five of them are holders of diplomas in engineering while the others are holders of degrees in engineering. Respondents 5 to 39 who were already in the service of the Corporation were appointed as Assistant Engineers by proOlOtiori as distinguished from the petifioners who were appointed by direct recruitment. 'The petitioners are, thereforee, direct recruits while these respondents are promotees. 50 per cent of the total number of posts of Assistant Engineers are to be filled by direct recruitment and 50 pet cent by promotion.(2) Some of the petitioners were appointed in 1962 and...
Union of India Vs. D.K. Gupta of Sudhir Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT334; 1978RLR476
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) This first appal is directed against the order dated 28th April, 1970, passed by a learned Single Judge setting aside award dated 10th June, 1965, on the ground that the arbitrators had 'failed to control and conclude the proceedings' which were commenced on or about 30th June, 1961, and that the arbitrators were guilty cf having misconducted themselves and the proceedings in that without affording proper opportunity to the claimant taking advantage of his absence, had made and announced the award in question. In that view of the matter, it was not considered feasible to remit the proceedings to the same arbitrators. The learned Single Judge superseded the reference on the ground that the procedure prescribed by Article 64 of the General Conditions of Contract was 'not only cumbersome but wholly illusory and was not intended to inspire confidence between the parties'. As a consequence the learned Single Judge held that the arbitration agreement 'will cease to have ef...
J.P. Gupta and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT363
H.L. Anand, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, Executive Engineers (Civil), in the Delhi Water Supply & Sewerage Disposal Undertaking, for short, the Undertaking, of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for short, the Corporation, stake their claim to superior seniority in the grade of Executive Engineers over respondents 6 to 14 and seek a declaration with regard to their consequential right to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of Superintending Engineer on the basis of revised .seniority. The petition was filed in the following circumstances.(2) Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 joined the Undertaking as Assistant Engineers on March 2, 1960, and August 10, 1961, respectively. Petitioner No. 3 joined the Corporation as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on August 30, 1961, and his services were subsequently transferred to the Undertaking by an order made on June 30, 1962. It appears that prior to their appointments as Assistant Eng...
Corporation Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT125; 1979(4)ELT329(Del)
B.C. Misra, J.(1) This writ petition is directed against the orderof the Government of India, dated 23/05/1968, by which ithas dismissed the revision and affirmed the appellate order of theAppellate Collector of Customs, dated 2 4/12/1965, bywhich the appeal had been dismissed and the order of the AssistantCollector of Customs, dated 1/11/1965 had been affirmed.(2) The material facts of the case giving rise to the writ petitionbriefly stated are that the petitioner had filed a bill of lading in respect of consignment of three cases of stainless steel sheets, whichwere assessable to duty. On 29/06/1965, the goods were examined and duty was paid and an order for home consumption waspassed. The consignment thereafter remained in the public warehouse and delivery of two consignments was taken, but the third consignment was found pilferred on 8/07/1965. On 17/07/1965 the petitioner made a claim for refund of the duty paid on thepilferred consignment and the Assistant Collector by order date...
Anuradha Alias Chanchal Kumari Vs. Santoshnath Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi739; 1978RLR111
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This first appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the appellant wife against the order of Mr. S. C. Chaturvedi. Additional District Judge, dated 29th January, 1976, by which he has dismissed the petition of the wife for divorce on the ground of impotency mentioned in section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The ground of cruelty mentioned in section 10(1)(b) has also been alleged in the petition. The court below repelled both of them.(2) The material facts of the case are that the appellant wife, who was a widow having lost her first husband, married the respondent husband, who had divorced his previous wife. The marriage took place on 23rd November, 1968. The parties lived together till 31st March, 1969 when they separated. No child was born out of the wedlock. The wife instituted the petition giving rise to this appeal on 12th June, 1969 and claimed dissolution of the marriage on the ground of impo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »