Delhi Court October 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.
Nassim Jani Vs. Lt. Governor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR41
Prakash Narain, J.(1) She next challenge is that according to grounds of detention it is based on alleged confession made by him duing interrogation by the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. This confession, it has been submitted, cannot be treated as confession because it is recorded in the English language with which the petitioner was not very familiar and, in any case, which was retracted by the petitioner at that very moment. The contention is that the fact of retraction of the alleged confession or that the petitioner was not very familiar with the English language was not brought to the notice of the Administrator who made the impugned order of detention. These facts not having been brought to his notice the detention order stands vitiated for it cannot be predicated whether the Administrator would have passed the order of detention despite knowledge that the alleged confessions were not the confessions of the petitioner and were, in any case, confessions whic...
Sikand Construction Co. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi364
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is a petition pending since April, 1975 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the arbitration agreement contained in Contract dated 27th April, 1965, relating to construction of State Bank of India Building at Parliament Street, New Delhi, for appointment of arbitrator and reference of disputes mentioned in Annexure A to the petition, to him.(2) The petitioner, is alleged, to have completed the construction work but the State Bank of India, respondent did not make payment. He claims Rs. 7,25,228.31 p. besides interest on account of the following items of work:1.Claim for increase in labour cost on account of increase in wages of labour on and from 19-5-1969. ............ ........Rs. 27,195.00 p. 2. Increase in rates for the work carried out at Pent House ..........Rs. 31,470.00 p. 3. Claim for refund of deduction of 21/2% on the value of Rs. 97,531.00 for the Pent House Work............ ........Rs. 2,438.00 p. 4. 7% increase payable on th...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi346
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a claim against the Railways. The plaintiffs, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Lakshmi Udyog (Udyog) have brought this suit for the recovery of Rs. 53,722.50 against the Union of India and the Railways on account of the loss of goods. (2) Three cases of printing machinery were booked at Wadi Bunder, Bombay on 19th December, 1967 for Varanasi. The Railways issued a railway receipt to the consignor of the goods. On their arrival at Varanasi on 24th January 1968 the goods were offered for delivery to the consignee. The consignee asked for open delivery. Open delivery was given to him. Out of three cases one case was found broken and contents missing. The remaining two cases were in sound condition. Within six months a claim for loss was lodged with the Chief Commercial Superintendent. The Railways repudiated the claim. On 26th February 1971, after serving a notice under s. 80 Civil Procedure Code ., the present suit was brought against the Railw...
Gian Chand Vs. Roop Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi377; 1979RLR469
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 19th January, 1978. (2) The respondent Roop Naraiin made an application for the eviction of his tenant, Gian Chand, petitioner in, this case, on the ground specified in clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). This application was to be tried in accordance with the provisions of S. 25B of the newly introduced' Chapter III-A of the Act. Following that procedure the Additional Controller issued summons to the tenant in the form set out in the Third Schedule to the Act. In the summons it was stated that the tenant could obtain leave to appear and contest the application 'on an application to the court supported by an affidavit as is referred to sub-section (5) of section 25B.' (3) Within 15 days from the receipt of the summons the tenant made an application for Lave. The application stated the grounds on which he soug...
N.P. Berry Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT108; 1979RLR88
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The main point of interest arising in this case is the distinction between a Judge acting as a persona designate and he acting as a court. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, as amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, challenges the validity of an order passed by an Additional District Judge, Delhi, acting as the appellate officer under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (the Act). Section 9 reads as follows : '' An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be district judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years' standing as the district judge may designate in this behalf. (2) An appeal made under sub-section shall be preferred, (a) in the case of an appeal from an order...
Beopar Mandal Yusuf Sarai Market Etc. Vs. the Lt. Governor of Delhi Et ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT193
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) By this civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to have the notification No. F. 15 (5)/66-L&H; dated August 22, 1968 issued under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter called the Act) (Copy Annexure 'E') quashed on the grounds (1) that the impugned declaration was not preceded by any notification under Section 4 of the Act, (2) that the public purpose of widening the road is not covered by the Master Plan of Delhi and is not a purpose for the planned development of Delhi, that there is no report of the land Acquisition Collector (hereafter called the Collector) under Section 5-A of the Act recommending the acquisition of the land in question, and (3) that the declaration falls short of the legal requirements, in as much as it only states that appears to the Lt. Governor that the land is required to be taken by the Government for a 'public purpose', while in a valid acquisition, it is necessary to...
Harbans Singh Vs. E.R. Srinivasan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi171; ILR1979Delhi248
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) This is a petition for revising under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure an order of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi allowing an application made under Order I rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing that the applicant be imp leaded as a defendant in Suit No. 836 of 1973. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. (2) Sardar Soham Singh was admittedly the owner of premises bearing No. 4/65 W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He died on 12-5-1965 leaving behind four sons and three daughters who are the plaintiffs in the above suit. Sohan Singh as well as all his children have alt along been residents of Bangkok. Thailand and the suit has been filed through their 'Mukhtar Am' Sardar Amar Singh who resides in the above premises in Karol Bagh. (3) This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against one Srinivasan (the first respondent herein) for the recovery of possession of a portion of the ground floor of the above premises (namely two rooms, kitchen,, bath...
Suresh Nand Vs. Rajiv Choudhry
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT27
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) -THIS in an application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents. The petitioner Suresh Nanda, his sister-in-law Mrs. Mona Nanda, Rajiv Choudhry, Sudhir Choudhry and Mrs. Amrit Choudhry were partners of the firm M/s. Eureka Sales Corporation. (2) On 26th May 77, Rajiv Choudhry, Sudhir Choudhry & Mrs. Amrit Choudhry filed a suit (suit No. 450. of 1977) against Suresh Nanda and Mrs. Mona Nanda for a declaration that the defendants retired from the partnership with effect from 17th May 1977 and are, thereforee, no longer its partners. The allegation made was that the respondents had, after accepting Rs. I 50,000.00 , retired from the partnership. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 rules 1,2 and 3 for restraining the defendants from interfering with the working of the partnership. The said application came up for consideration before Pritam Si...
J.P. Sharma Vs. Shasffi Bala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi288
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment of a single Judge of this Court upholding the order of the trial court dismissing the petition of the appellant for judicial separation. (2) We will not repeat all the facts which have been given in detail by the learned single Judge. The material facts are these. The parties, who are residents of Delhi, were married on December 2, 1965. They belong to middle class society, A daughter was born to them on January 20, 1967. It was followed by some quarrels. The wife with the child was sent to her parents' home in October, 1967. She had to live there for a year before joining her husband again. On April 29, 1969 the wife had an abortion. On July 23, 1969 she had to be taken to neurology department of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). For about a year she was all right. She fell sick again in June, 1970 and was sent to her parents' home on June 9, 1970. She was once more taken to Ai...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. Vs. Man Mohan Tuli and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi144
1. Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 72 and 73 of 1977 have been filed against the common judgment of H. 4 Anand, J., dated 27th January, 1977, in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 240 of 1976 and 73 of 1976 respectively.2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 103 of 1977 has been filed against the Judgment of Dalip K, Kapur, J., Dated 23rd March, 1977, in Civil Writ Petition No. 183 of 1976.3. By the said judgments, the three Writ Petitions were allowed, and hence the present three appeals. These three appeals have been heard together as they involve common points for determination.4. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 240 of 1976 were:(1) M/s. Nitco Roadways Private Limited, (2), R. L Bhalla, General Manager and shareholder of M/s. Nitco Roadways Private Limited, and the respondents were: (1) The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, (2) The Delhi Terminal Tax Agency/ Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation. (3) The Lt. Governor for the Union Territory of Delhi, and (4) Shri ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »