Delhi Court January 1978 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.
Darshan Singh Kochhar Vs. S. Jaswant Singh Kochhar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi304; 14(1978)DLT6B
ORDER1. This order, will dispose of three applications (I As. 2M/76, 2538/77 and 200/78) made by the .plaintiffs under 0. 6, R. 17 and S. 151 of the Civil P. C. for the amendment of his plaint 2. The suit No. 445 of 197%. plaint whereof is sought to be amended was Instituted by Sardar Darshan Singh Kochhar as stated by way of its heading , rendition of accounts declaration and permanent Injunction!. new prayer clause, numbered -as para. 119, reads as follows.-11 19. The Hon We Court be pleased to pass decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the following effect:- (a) The accounts' of the firm Ws. B. Dadabhoy be taken from 1-7-67 till 30-6-76 and the defendant No. 1 be call-ed upon to redder, the same, and whatever is found lie to the plaintiff from any of the defend would be damaged against and made recoverable from him and should it be necessary to dissolve the liquor business of the firm, this may also be done. (a) (a) A perpetual Injunction be Issued against ...
Jai Narian and ors. Vs. Mangat Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT26; 1978RLR394
D.K. Kapnr, J.(1) The present revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge refusing an amendment in the plaint. The addition to the plaint which the plaintiffs have prayed for is set out in paragraph No. 4 of the order under revision ; it merely states that the plaintiffs want to say that 'the defendant proves that the property is trust property it will not impair the right of the plaintiffs as they are transferees in good faith for consideration.(2) The suit is for recovery of rent and it appears that the plaintiffs are purchaser of the property which is alleged to be trust property and hence it appears that the defendants have denied the rights of the plaintiffs to claim rent of the property.The question to be asked at this stage is whether the court is right in refusing an amendment. One of the reason for which the amendment in the plaint has been disallowed is that the evidence has been closed and no further plea should be allowed. The other groun...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Het Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT195
Dalip K. Kapur, J.(1) This is a revisional petition under the criminal procedure code (Section 40 read with Section 397) arising out of the conviction of the respondent under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A notice has been issued to the respondent but nobody is present for him today. Mr.B.T.Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has very fairly taken me through all the facts and circumstances of the case and I now proceed to decide the revisional petition. (2) The accused was sentenced to three months imprisonment and fine of R. 500.00 or in default three months of imprisonment on account of selling of mis-branded milk. He was also sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment withs fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default six months in payment of fine for selling adulterated milk. The learned counsel for the applicant which is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the prosecutor in the case, sudmits that there were two charges in this case and...
Shiv Lal Kalra Vs. Dewak Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT63
V.D. Mishra, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal upholding the eviction order passed by the Controller. (2) Dewak Ram Gupta and his son 0m Prakash Gupta (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlords' own house No. 12018, ward No. XII. Shakti Nagar, Delhi. Shiv Lal Kaira (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') is a tenant on the second-floor of this house. The landlords filed an application under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the tenant on the ground that 'the premises let for residential purposes are required bona-fide by the landlord-petitioner No. 1, for occupation as a residence for himself, his wife and family of petitioner No. 2'. It was averred that the landlords had bought the premises in dispute for their own residence. However, at the time of its purchase only one portion was vacant and it was occupied by 0m Prakash Gupta. Dewak Ram Gupta and his wife always wanted to live with their son 0m Parkash Gupta and his famil...
Bharat Ram Charat Ram P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas53(Delhi); [1979]116ITR138(Delhi)
1. This is a consolidated reference made under Section 66(1) of the I.T. Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches, in R.A. Nos. 95 to 98 of 1970-71. There were four reference applications, pertaining to assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63, filed by M/s. Bharat Ram Charat Ram Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessed '). Since the reference applications involved some common questions of law the Tribunal made a consolidated reference. Two questions have been referred to us, one of which is common to all the four assessment years and the other to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62.2. The first question, which is common for all the four assessment years,runs as follows:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing the sums of Rs. 36,000 in each of the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 and Rs. 35,700 and Rs. 29,700 in the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63, respectively, from out of ...
Jagdish and ors. Vs. Har Sarup
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi233; 14(1978)DLT66; 1978RLR266
1. Har Sarup, plaintiff, owns agricultural land in village Mandaoli Fazalpur. Adjoining land is owned by jagdish and others, defendants. The defendants, while excavating earth from their land, are alleged to have excavated earth from a part of the plaintiff's land and, later on, refused to restore it. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants claiming mandatory injunction for restoration of earth. 2. The defendants raised various Pleas in defense. One of the Pleas was that the suit was not maintainable in view of S. 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act No. 47 of 1963). The trial court came to the conclusion that since equally efficacious remedy of damages was available to the Plaintiff so mandatory injunction could not be granted and since he had not claimed damages this relief was prohibited by sub-section (2) of S. 40 of the Act. The suit was, thereforee, dismissed. 3. The Plaintiff filed an appeal. One of the grounds taken in appeal was that the trial court should hav...
P.S. Gill and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi515
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) Order of reference : The first and the second petitioners claim to be owners of land measuring about 4000sq. Yards of field No. 1102 in the triangular part of village (3ari Naraina on Ring Road. This land forms part of Delhi Cantonment.(2) The petitioners, land was acquired by the Union of India, respondent No.1. On October 24, 1961, the Chief Commissioner issued , notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Acquisitior Act) that 16,000 acres of land is intended to be acquired by the .Goverrment 'for the planned development of Delhi'. On January 2, 1969, the Lt. Governor issued a notification under s. 6 of the Acquisition Act.(3) By a defense Department notification dated May 2, 1942. issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (3) of s. 4 of the Cantonments Act 1924 t!'e Central Government included the petitioners, land wifhin the limits or the Delhi Cantonment. The petitioners' case is that their land being situated in Delhi Cantonmen...
Prestige Finance P. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Balwant Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1978
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas459(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This is an application under Order 22, Rule 4, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been moved in the course of a proceeding under the Companies Act, 1956, instituted under Section 446 and other Sections against Shri Balwant Singh and others. The facts of the case are that Shri Krishan Lal, one of the respondents named in the petition under Section 446, was found to be dead when the summons issued by this court was sought to be served on him. On this, the official liquidator moved the present application for impleading his legal representatives. In response to this application, the legal representatives have submitted that the petition is not maintainable because it was filed against a dead person and Shri Krishan Lal had died on 19th March, 1968, which was before the main application was moved. It is necessary to distinguish the preliminary objection from the objection on merits, because in the first instance it is submitted that the origina...
R.K. Gupta Vs. Delhi Administration, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi82
V.S. Deshpande (1) A question of first impression arises in this writ petition, namely, whether the availability of a suit in a civil court to the petitioner is 'any other remedy' within the meaning of clause (3) of Article 226 of the constitution and whether it is a bar to the entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 for such relief as can alternatively be obtained by a suit. A Full Bench of five Judges of the Gujarat High Court in A'bad cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd.. v. Union of India Air 1977 Guj 113, has answered the question in the negative, but a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Government of India a'nd others v. The National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd, : AIR1977AP250 , has answered it in the affirmative. With great respect, a totally different approach to the question seems to be called for. (2) The contest in this writ petition is between tile petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. All of them. arc Assistant Workshop Superinendents under the Delhi Administration. ...
Upendra Kumar Vs. Harpriya Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi97
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This appeal raises several questions oflaw. In order, however, to appreciate the contentions raised it is firstnecessary to notice facts.(2) The parties hereto are Hindus. They were married on 11/03/1974 at Ram Nagar in Uttar Pradesh in accordance with Hindurites. After marriage the couple went to and resided at Buxar, theplace of the husband. They lived together as husband and wife onlyfor two days for in the forenoon of 14/03/1974 the respondentleft for her parental home. The parties have never resided togetherat any place thereafter. On 18/09/1975 the appellantfiled a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act againstthe respondent praying for the grant of a decree for restitution ofconjugal rights. This petition was filed in the court of the DistrictJudge, Delhi. The respondent was served with the notice of THE petition. Appearance was put in on her behalf and on 13/11/1975 a request was made to grant time to file the written statementor reply to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »