Delhi Court September 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.
The Sialkot Industrial Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT125a
B.C. Misra, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Government of India, dated 23rd May, 1968, by which it has dismissed the revision and affirmed the appellate order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, dated 24th December, 1965, by which the appeal had been dismissed and the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, dated 1st November, 1965 had been affirmed.2. The material facts of the case giving rise to the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had filed a bill of lading in respect of consignment of three cases of stainless steel sheets, which were assessable to duty. On 29th June, 1965, the goods were examined and duty was paid and an order for home consumption was passed. The consignment thereafter remained in the public ware-house and delivery of two consignments was taken, but the third consignment was found pilferred on 8th July, 1965. On 17th July, 1965 the petitioner made a claim for refund of the duty paid on the pilferred consignm...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Gurucharan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT134; 1978RLR415
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) These are two applications filed onbehalf of the State under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure(2) CR. M.(M) 456 of 1977 has been filed for cancellation of the order of bail dated 1/08/1977 passed by Sessions Judge, Delhi,granting bail to P. S. Bhinder, Deputy Inspector General of Police.Gurcharan Singh. Superintendent of Police, Amarject Singh, Inspecarof Police and Parsu Ram. constable.(3) CR. M(M) 474 of 1974 has also been filed by the State forcancellation of bail granted, by different orders dated 11th August,1977, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, to Raj Kumar Sharma,S.D.P.O. Shahdara Division, Delhi, Rohtas Singh, Inspector, formerlyS.H.O. Police Station, Farash Bazar, East District Delhi, Harkesh, Inspector of Police, Sukhdev Singh, formerly S.D.P.O. Gandhi Nagar,East District, Dehii, Sita Ram Vohra, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajeshwar Pershad Gautam, Sub-Inspector, Rajinder Singh, Sub-Inspectorand Dharampal Singh, Sub-Inspector.(4) The f...
Harbas Singh Vs. Shanti Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT369; 1977RLR487
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The only question argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal is whether both the general and the special powers of attorney or either of them which had been executed by the appellant in favor of Shri H. K. Gulati, husband of the respondent on 11th January 1964 were or was cancelled validly by the appellant by his lawyer's letter dated 8th February 1965. The answer to this question in its turn depends on the construction of section 202 of the Contract Act and particularly on the meaning of the word 'interest' used therein.(2) The appellant Harbans Singh was an allottee of shop No. 90, Bhagat Singh Market by the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, for a consideration of Rs. 5890-60. As he was not in a position to pay the aforesaid dues to the Government, he agreed to sell his right, title and interest in the said shop to the respondent for Rs. 18,000.00 by the agreement dated 11-1-1964 Exhibit P-3. Ra. 3200.00 were paid in...
Mohd. Suleman Alias Kallu and Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1977
Reported in: ILR1977Delhi660
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The appellants Mohd. Suleman alias Kallu (we shall call him Kallu) and his brother Babudin were tried by the Additicnal Sessions Judge for the offence of committing murder of Kamil. Kallu was convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Babudin was convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He loo was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Both the appellants appeal to this court against their conviction and sentence. The appeal of Mohd. Suleman alias Kallu (2) Babudin is the elder brother. He is aged 25 years. Kallu is the younger one aged 21 years. Both are residents of House No. 6782 Ahata Kidara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Next to their house is house No. 6781 which was purchased by the parents of the deceased Kamil two months prior to the date of the incident resulting in the death of Kamil. Kamil (25 years old), Akil (31 years old) and Shakir (19 years old) are three brothers. In house No....
Suresh Vasudeva Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ677
ORDERYogeshwar Dayal, J.1. Capt. Suresh Vasudeva, the petitioner, has filed the present application Under Section 438 of the Cr.PC for being granted anticipatory bail for the alleged offence under Section & 6 read with Section 8(1) and Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, for having 'otherwise acquired' foreign exchange other than through an authorised agent or having imported the foreign exchange in violation of the Act.2. The case of the petitioner is that the Special Police Establishment of the Fraud Squad Branch, New Delhi registered a case No. 8/77-FS (1) of 14th Aug., 1977, Under Section 120-B read with Sections 5(2), 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and subsequent offence Under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) and 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Shri R. K. Dhawan and nine others including the petitioner,3. The petitioner was arrested in connection with that case in Kanpur and ultimately produce...
Heero Bibi and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1977
Reported in: 13(1977)DLT156
Prakesh Narain, J.(1) This will dispose of the two connected appeals. Regular First appeal No. 214 of 1969 and Regular First Appeal No. 338 of 1969, which are in the nature of cross-appeals against the same judgment of an Addl. District Judge disposing of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 'The Act'). (2) A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued by the Delhi Administration on May 26, 1960 in respect of land and buildings, of a property commonly known as Ludlow Castle Estate. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was made in respect of the said property on August 8, 1961. After inviting claims the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award in respect of 54 bighas and 12 bids was of land but did not give his award in respect of the land under t(3) The Union of India is also dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the judgment of the Addl. District Judge. It has, thereforee, filed R.F.A. No. 338 of 1969 against Smt....
Kanwaljit Singh Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi81
ORDER1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution instituted by the petitioner against the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the State Transport Authority, Delhi, in relation to an application made by the petitioner for the grant of a Stage Carriage Permit on the route-Delhi Fountain to Laxmi Nagar. This application was filed, according to the petition after the S. T. A. had fixed the strength of the number of Stage Carriage permit to be granted over this route as two and invited applications. It is also stated that there were several applicants for the same; the petitioner himself had applied for one of the permits and another firm, M/s. Mohan and Co., had applied for both permits. The Authority granted one permit to M/s. Mohan and Co., and all the other applicants were found ineligible for the grant of the second permit except M/s. Mohan and Co., and the petitioner. It appears that in Jan., 1971, the petitioner and M/s. Mohan and Co., were called by the State Transpo...
The New Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1977
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas226(Delhi); ILR1977Delhi672
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) Contract, Maitland has said, is the greediest of legal categories. The reason is that the concept of contract symbolising the satisfaction of reasonable expectations is often regarded as a criterion of justice which is or ought to be. the aim of all law. The extension of the concept of contract with which we are concerned in the present appeal is to the relationship between a third party and debtor arising out of two contracts, one between the debtor and the creditor and the other between the creditor and the third party. The question is whether a contract (called a 'collateral agreement' by Treitel in 'The law of contract' Fourth Edition, Chapter 15) can be spelt out between the third party and the debtor.(2) The debtor is the Union of India, Respondent 1. The creditor is a partnership firm Messrs. Harbhajan Singh Roshan Singh, Respondent 3. The third party is the New Bank of India, the appellant. On 19th August, 1958 a contract (Exhibit D-l) was concluded betwee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›