Delhi Court November 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.
Amrik Singh Bhandari Vs. Uttani Singh Dugal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi81
ORDER1. The petitioner filed the present petition under S. 8 of the Arbitration Act alleging that he was one of the directors of the company respondent No. 1, that he ceased to be the director of the company from 16th May, 1973, that disputes arose about the payment of gratuity and compensation, for loss of office to him, that Shri S. Watel, Advocate, respondent No. 2 was appointed as an arbitrator, that Shri Watel expressed his inability to act as an arbitrator, that the agreement of reference does not show that the vacancy would not be supplied, that a notice dated 25th Feb. 1974 was served upon the company respondent No. 1 requiring it to concur in the appointment of Shri Inderjit Singh respondent No. 3 as sole arbitrator in the matter. As the respondent No. 1 did not concur in the appointment of the arbitrator, the petitioner filed the present petition for the appointment of respondent No 3 as sole arbitrator or any other person as an arbitrator to settle the two disputes regarding...
Laxmi Starch Ltd. and anr. Vs. State and Municipal Corporation of Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi332
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The facts of this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. are that M/s. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. manufacture bread and biscuits in which, according to the standards prescribed in items Nos. A. 18.07 and A. 18.14 in App. B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, they are permitted to mix edible starches. On October 9, 1975, at 6.45 P.M.. a Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi went to check their premises and found a bag of tapioca starches which was sent to them by the petitioner Laxmi Starch Ltd., Coimbatore. The Food Inspector, however, purchased a sample out of the said starch, though the salesman had endorsed the receipt to say that price was not acceptable as they did not sell tapioca starch. The Food inspector forwarded one portion of the sample to the Public Analyst, who on October 22, 1975, reported that the sample on microscopic examination was found to contain 20 per cent foreign starches of millet. A complaint was lodged on Septemb...
Moti Ram Vs. Baldev Krishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT90
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This is a second appeal which has arisen like this. The property in dispute was an evacuee property. Madan Mohan Lal, father of the defendant, Baldev Krishan, was an allottee. The property was sold to the plaintiff, Moti Ram, on November 1, 1961, and a certificate was issued in his favor on December 20,1961. According to Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the defendant became a statutory tenant and could not be evicted before two years without certain specified rounds. The plaintiff, however, filed an application for fixation of rent. The Rent Controller revised the rent to Rs. 15.00 per month from Rs. 13.00 per month. Moti Ram served a notice by registered post on Madan Mohan Lal on April 9, 1963, which was returned refused. Four years thereafter, Madan Mohan Lal died in the year 1967. The present suit was brought by Moti Ram against his son Baldev Krishan in 1969 for possession and recovery of damages. In that plaint, the...
Shiv Nath Singh Vs. Piyare Lal Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT46
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This revision petition under Sec. 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is directed against the order of Shri J.D. Kapoor, 6th Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi dated 14th October, 1977 by which leave was refused to the petitioner-tenant to contest the application of the respondent-landlord on the ground of personal bona flde necessity. The landlord brought on 21st May, 1977 an application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act' 1958 (thereinafter referred as the 'Act') for eviction of Dr. Shiv Nath Singh, tenant from premises comprising two rooms and one verandah at 3886, Imli Basti, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The tenant filed an application for leave to appear and contest the petition and filed a detailed affidavit disclosing the facts on the basis of which leave contest was sought. Affidavit was filed by the landlord in opposition to the application of the tenant for leave to appear and defend. The Additional Rent Controller. Delhi notices in ...
Umesh Kapur Vs. Shakuntala Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1978
Reported in: 35(1979)DLT330; 1979RLR449
Avadh Behari Rohatgi. J,(1) This is a husband's appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge Delhi dated the 19th February 1977, refusing him divorce. The husband petitioned for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty under S. 13. of the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial Court dismissed his petition. (2) The parties were married at Delhi on 11th May, 1968. There are two, children of the marriage. A daughter was born in July, 1969. Subsequently, a son was born on 6th January, 1971. Both husband and wife are in service. The husband at present is agent of the Bank of India at Ambala city drawing a salary of about Rs. 1500 per month. He is a graduate and 36 years of age. The wife is also a graduate. She is a senior investigator in the Ministry of Commerce and is getting a pay of about Rs. 1000 per month. She is 34 years of age. (3) The marriage was performed at Delhi. For a few days the parties lived at Inderprastha College flat where the husbands elder brother and his wife...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT126; ILR1979Delhi464; 1979RLR32
Leila Seth, J. (1) The salient point in this case pertains to the amended Section 13(2) of the Prevent'on of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question posed is whether the amended provisions of the said sub-section of the Act amount to testimonial compulsion and thus violate the constitutional guarantee provided in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.(2) The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, is carrying on business of selling and storing Deshi Ghee at his shop No. 633, Khari Baoli, Delhi. He is a partner of M/s. Amar Dass Chaman Lal. It is alleged that a sample of Amar Special Sudh Ghee was taken by Food Inspector Shri S. C. Bhalla on 24th January, 1977 from the petitioner. The said sample was sent to the Public Analyst who by his report dated 29th January. 1977 found the said Sudh Ghee to be adulterated. On or about 4th April, 1978 Ashok Kumar received a memorandum dated 1st' April, 1978 from the Local Food Health Authority, Delhi Administration encl...
Charan Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi422; 1979LabIC633; (1979)IILLJ123Del
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) On the one hand. Articles 14, 15(1), 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution declare the right to equality and prohibit the State from practicing discrimination. On the other hand, Articles 46, 15(3), 15(4) and 16(4) firstly impose a duty on the State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and enable the State to make any special provision for women and children as also lor the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens as also for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The former is the negative and the latter is positive aspect of the fundamental right of equality. Equality is not only proclaimed as an ideal but is sought to be achieved in actuality by asking the State to remove inequality and enabling it to make appropriate provisi...
Hoshiar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT24
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The facts of the prosecution case are that Food Inspector, Bhardwaj, took a sample of a food article from the shop situated in Chandni Chowk Delhi of Mohan Lal, son of Kirpa Ram on Aug., 25. 1975. It was petitioner Hoshiar Singh son of Shiv Singh who had sold the sample to the Food Inspector, but he gave out his name as Mohan Lal, hence, the case was instituted against Mohan Lal. But the real Mohan Lal died later on and the case was consigned to records. On the same shop, Food Inspector, Rishi Rain Sharma and R.S. Tiyagi again purchased samples on Sept., 25,1976. These samples were also sold to the Food Inspector by Hoshiar Singh. This time against Hoshiar Singh gave his name as Mohan Lal. The food Inspector got suspicious and arrested him under section 42 Cr.P.O., and section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and produced him before the Magistrate, who remanded the petitioner to judicial custody and directed that the previous file (No. 40/3 of 1976...
Suraj Parkash Katal Vs. Santosh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT30
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) Shrimati Santosh (the wife) brought a petition on 6th April, 1976 under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for judicial separation against Shri Suraj Parkash (the husband). The allegations are that the husband has deserted the wife for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the husband has treated the wife with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful, injurious and dangerous for her to live with him and hence she is entitled to judicial separation under Section 10(1) of the Act. With the amendment of the Act by Act 68 of 1976, the wife moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for converting the petition for judicial separation into one for divorce by virtue of Section 39 of Act 68 of 1976. The amendment application was allowed. The wife in the amended petition seeks a decree of div...
Bhim Sen JaIn Vs. Station House Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR272
M.L. Jain, J.(1) According to the police' the reports were received against the petitioner that he was carrying on speculation in silver which was prohibited under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. In respect of the violations of the said Act, nine cases were lodged against him u/Ss. 21 and 22 thereof. Five out of those resulted in discharge or aqcuittal. Four were cancelled by the police itself. 3 cases were instituted after the emergency was imposed. On 3.3.76, S.H.O. Kotwali submitted a report that the petitioner in spite of these prosecutions did not refrain from speculation in silver and other commodities and required to be watched. A history-sheet is required to be prepared so that proper surveillance be kept on him. He requested that his name be directed to be entered in Bundle 'A' and in the Register No. 10 Part II. The S. P. agreed with this suggestion on 22.3.76. On 30.3.76 a report was lodged against him in the Kotwali showing that he continued to indulge in spec...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »