Delhi Court November 1978 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.
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Ranjit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT170
Vyas Dev Misra, J. (1) This is an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of the bail of respondent Ranjit Singh. It is alleged that the respondent has been intimidating two prosecution witnesses. Three incidents are mentioned. First relates to May 7, 1978 when witness Kundan Lal was threatened which resulted in proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Second is of May 11, 1978 when witness Darshan Lal lodged a report with the police and a case under Sec(2) The respondent has, in reply placed on record copies of the various made by the respondent and/or the members of his family from time to time. It is apparent from the report (Annexure B to the reply) submitted by Assistant Sub-Inspector Gopal Dass of Police Station Shahdara to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that at one time respondent and Kundn Lal, Darshan Lal were working as property dealers. Thereafter they separated and the respondent started working indepen...
Amal Mal Sindhi Vs. Ram Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT344
T.P.S. Chawla, J.1. The question referred to the Division Bench is whether an order passed under any of the first four sub-sections of sections 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) directing the tenant to pay the past, the present and the future rent of the premises to the landlord which has ceased to operate due to the termination of the eviction petition either by its dismissal or by the passing of an order for eviction, is revived restored when in the appeal the dismissal is set aside and the case is remanded for rehearing under Order XLI Rule 23 or under the inherent powers (now Rule 23A) of the Code of Civil Procedure.x x x x x x x x x 2. The Rent Control Tribunal held that on remand the order under Section 15(1) of the Act had stood revived and the tenant, was bound to comply with the same. Since he did not comply with it his defense was rightly struck out and the eviction was justified.3. The appeals against the striking out the defense as also against evictionwere d...
Haji Mohammed DIn and anr. Vs. NaraIn Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi186; 15(1979)DLT198; 1979RLR127
Deshpandie, C.J.1. It is the effect of the change in the definition of 'tenant' in Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the principal Act) brought about by the retrospective amendment made by Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (amending Act), which is to be considered in these appeals referred to the Full Bench.2. The Questions:(1) What is the meaning of 'tenant' in Section 2(1) of the principal Act firstly under the old definition as it existed prior to lst December, 1075 and secondly in the amended definition with effect from lst December, 1975. (2) Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram, : AIR1976SC2229 , apply to the construction of the old definition of 'tenant' in preference to the majority decision in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi, : [1964]4SCR892 , followed in J. C. Chatterjee v. Sri Kishan Tandon, : [1973]1SCR850 . (3) Whether in the new definition clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(1) have to be ...
Dinesh Chander Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT88
M.L. Jain, J. (1) On July 17, 1974, one Ramesh Chand lodged a report that while he was going with his brother Anurag Kumar in Tilak Bazar, the accused persons four in number attacked them with knife with the result that Ramesh Chand received a knife injury on the wrist and a scratch on his neck and Anurag Kumar suffered six simple hurts. The police after investigation challaned the accused under sections 307/324/34 Indian Penal Code The learned Magistrate purporting to act under section 209 Criminal Procedure Code held that the case under section 307 Indian Penal Code , an offence exclusively triable by the court of session, was not made out and he proceeded to try the case under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. Ramesh Chand thereupon filed a criminal revision in the court of session, The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his order dated January 12,1977, held that the Magistrate cannot appreciate the evidence. He is merely tosee if from the report of the police under section 173 C...
Mohammed DIn and anr. Vs. NaraIn Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi139
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) It is the effect of the change in the definition of 'tenant' in section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the principal Act) brought about by the retrospective amendment made by section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (amending Act), which is to be considered in these appeals referred to the Full Bench.(2) The Questions (1) What is the meaning of 'tenant' in section 2(1) of the principal Act firstly under the old definition as it existed prior to 1st December, 1975 and secondly in the amended definition with effect from 1st December, 1975 (2) Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others, : AIR1976SC2229 , apply to the construction of the old definition of 'tenant' in preference to the majority decision in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi and others, : [1964]4SCR892 , followed in J. C. Chatterjee & others, v. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon and others, : [1973]1SCR850 Whether in the new defin...
Basanta Lal and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT22
F.S. Gill, J. (1) The Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 against Basanta Lal, Rajasthan Shudh Masala Supply Bhandar, Kanhaya Lal, Madan Lal, Dwarka Parshad, Rameshwar Dayal and Kailash Chand. It was alleged that the food Inspector had taken sample of chillies powder from Basanta Lal at the premises of the firm. After the necessary formalities one of the bottles containing the sample was sent to the public Analyst who reported that the contents were adulterated as there as presence of 1.17% of common salt an extraneous matter. The vendor-partner Basanta Lal and the other five partners were sent up for trial, (2) The evidence produced by the complainant was completed. Thereafter the parties were heard on the question of charge. Sh.J.D. Kapur, the learned Metropolitan magistrate ordered that charges against all the seven accused be framed under section 7 read with section 16 of the preventio...
Bhopal Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT93; 1979LabIC860
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This petition was filed in this court challenging the dismissal of the petitioner by the Commandant, Delhi Armed Police by his order of 9th July, 1968. The appeal filed, and then further as revision also failed as per the order of the Inspector General of Police, Delhi dated 5-6-1969. The dismissal was a sequel to what is common by known as 'agitation of Delhi Policemen in 1967'. (2) It appears that the policemen in Delhi had been agitating for improvement of their conditions of service and some other demands. The demands of the policemen were apparently supported by quite number of organisations including political parties. In that context a meeting sponsored by Samyukat Socialist Party (S.S.P.) was held on 1-8-1967 at Kingsway camp crossing, in support of the demand of the Delhi policemen and also to plead the cases of dismissed or suspended policemen. The petitioner was charged that he took part in that meeting and this amounted to grave misconduct as taking ...
Bharat Ram and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT123
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quash- ing of the order dated June 5, 1976 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Delhi, in a complaint filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against Dr. Bharat Ram, Managing Director, and Mr. P.D. Nebhnani, Chief Engineer, of the Delhi Cloth Mills and the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., under Section 357 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. (2) The complaint was that on June 3, 1976 at 11 A.M., a Sanitory Inspector visited the D.C.M. area and found that smoke and abnoxious matter containing dust particles were being limited from the chimneys of the D.C.M. and were being allowed to be deposited in the near by localities, streets and drains and thus constituting a health hazard and nuisance to the localities and the passer. By the learned Magistrate directed on June 7. 1976, that the exa- mination of the complainant being a public officer, was dispensed with and since complaint disclosed, ...
Madras Rubber Factory Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS225D; 1979(4)ELT173(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order F. 11/32/77-CE/2216 dated, February 20, 1978 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Goa rejecting the applications of the petitioner for the refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,51,380.77.2. M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., petitioner herein, with their registered office at Madras have two units manufacturing automotive tyres and tubes, one at Madras and the other at Goa. Both the factories have been granted separate Central Excise licenses under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Competent Authorities in whose jurisdiction the factories are situated. The duty of excise is livable on tyres and tubes under Tariff Item No. 16 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under sub-item (1) of Tariff Item 16, Excise duty is livable on tyres at the rate of 60% ad valor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›