Delhi Court December 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.
Sagar Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana and anr. Vs. the Union of India and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi118; ILR1979Delhi492
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The main question is whether the present suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code. Plaintiff No. 1 and his wife plaintiff No. 2 filed this suit on 27th November, 1975, for recovery of Rs. 18 lacs by sale of the mortgaged property against Mr. M. R. Dhawan defendant No. 2 and his wife Smt. Satya Dhawan defendant No. 3. The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure that their right to recover the mortgage-debt from defendants Nos. 2 and 3 takes priority over the right of Union of India defendant No. 1 for recovery of its income-tax dues from Mr. M. R. Dhawan defendant No. 2.(2) The property known as 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi, was purchased on 15th May, 1954 in the name of Smt. Satya Dhawan defendant No. 3 from Seth Jagat Narain. She executed a general power of attorney on 1st May, 1955, in favor of her husband, Mr. M. R. Dhawan defendant No. 2 created an equitable mortgage in conside...
V.V. Purie Vs. E.M.C. Steel Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas127(Delhi); ILR1979Delhi477
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 237 of the Companies Act seeking an order for an investigation into the. affairs of E.M.C. Steel Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). Sri Ved Vyas appearing for the respondents raised two preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition : (1) that the petitioner has no locus standi to file a petition under Section 237; and '2) that the allegations in the petition and the circumstances in which the petition has been filed show that the petition is mala fide and intended only to harass the respondent by setting in motion a fishing enquiry into the affairs of the company. I am disposing of by this order only these two preliminary objections which, if up-held, would result in the petition being dismissed in liming.(2) The first respondent the company, was incorporated on August 21, 1971 as the Private Limited Company but became a public company on December 28, 1973. The paid up capital of the company is rupees...
Hira Lal and ors. Vs. Banarasi Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT300; 1979RLR354
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This second appeal by two brothers and legal representatives of the 3rd claiming to be joint tenants of a residential premises assails the order of the Rent Control Tribunal upholding that of the Controller allowing the plea for eviction. (2) The landlord respondent sought eviction of Hira Lal, appellant No. 1, on a number of grounds. Hira Lal resisted the petition contesting all the grounds, including the allegation that he had sublet, assigned or parted with possession of the demised premises in favor of his two brothers and had acquired another premises where he has been residing with his family. Hira Lal pleaded that the premises had been held by all the three brothers as Joint tenants since 1953. In view of this plea the landlord amended the petition and imp leaded the other two brothers. One of the brothers died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representatives were brought on record. The Controller allowed the plea of eviction under Section 1...
inder Mohan Lal Vs. Secretary, Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT80
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The facts which give rise to this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India are that one Moezzi Akbar, an Iranian national, landed at Palam Airport, Delhi, on April 20, 1977, by the Thai Airways, flight No. TG-931, arriving from Frankfurt. He had a passport issued at Bonn on April 23, 1976, and visa issue by the Indian Embassy. When he was passing through the immigration checking counter, it was discovered that he was one of the persons whose entry into India had been banned. The Inspector Immigration, served a notice directing the Thai Airways to remove him out of India by the same or the first available flight on failing of which they were liable to a action under Sec. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The next available flight of the Thai Airways was on April 25, 1977. They undertook to send him by that flight, as a result of this he was put in the transit lounge. It was subsequently alleged that one Mis...
C.K. Karunakaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR757(Delhi)
Anand, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a former civil servant, who was deemed to have retired from service on absorption in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, raises an interesting question as to the taxability of terminal benefit payable to him under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 37A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petition was filed in the following circumstances :2. The petitioner joined civil service in 1959 in the Industrial Management Pool, Central Services Class I. The pool which was constituted in 1957 was, however, abolished with effect from March 31, 1977. The pool officers were, however, given the option to either seek permanent absorption in public sector corporations, in which they were serving on deputation, or to retire from service. The petitioner was required to give his option for absorption in the Oil & Natural Gas Commission. The petitioner exercised the option for permanent absorption in the Commis...
Balak Ram Vs. Kaushalya
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1978
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi249
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) This is an appeal by the husband under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He filed a petition forjudicial separation under section 10 of that Act on the ground ofdesertion by his wife. In the order under appeal, the Additional District Judge has held that he has no jurisdiction to try that petitionas the parties did not last reside together' in Delhi, which was thebasis on which the jurisdiction of the court was sought to be foundedunder section 19 of the Act. Consequently, the judge has ordered THE petition to be returned for presentation to the proper court. Thequestion canvassed in appeal is whether the judge was right in holding that the husband and wife had not last resided together' in Delhi.(2) In one respect the history of this marriage is rather extraordinary.Although this husband and wife have been married for over 16 years,they have lived together very little. Yet, somehow, the marriage hasdrifted on for all these years. They were married on 8/...
Kharshid Haider Vs. Zubeda Begum
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR161
Avadh Behari, J.(1) MST. Zubeda Begum is the widow of K. B.Mirza Hamid Ali Khan. On 13-2-1968, she brought a petition for the ejectment of her tenant Khurshid Haider. She also joined the sub-tenants, Mushayab Hussain and Mehtab Hussain. She claimed ejectment on two grounds. One was that the tenant had sublet, assigned or othetwise parted with the possession of the ground floor without her coirsent or her predecessor's consent in writing. The second ground was that she required the premises bone fide for residence for herself and the members of her family dependent on her. She alieged that she was living in a rented premises which were insufficient for her requirements. (2) The rent Controller Mrs. S. Duggal by order dated 25.3.71 passed an order of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The ground of sub etting was decided against her. Against order of eviction tenant appealed. The Rent Control Tribunal by order of 11.10.72 dismissed the appeal. The tenant has now brought this...
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi387
ORDER S.O.265(E)/18AA/IDRA/78 - Whereas the Central Government is satisfied from the documentary and other evidence in its possession, that the persons in charge of the industrial undertaking, namely, (i) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur, (ii) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry, (iii) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini, (iv) M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Maunath Bhanjan, (v) M/s. Udaipur Cotton Mills Ltd., Udaipur and (vi) M/s. Rai Bareli Textile Mills Ltd., Rae Bareli of M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Kaapur (hereinafter referred as the said industrial undertakings), have by creation of encumbrances on the assets of the said industrial undertakings, brought about a situation which has affected and is likely to further affect the production of articles manufactured or produced in the said industrial undertaking and that immediate action is necessary to prevent such a situation; NOWtherefore, in exercise of power conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 18AA of th...
Indian Organic Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-1978
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT521(Del)
ORDER1. Incentive Scheme: On 16th June, 1976, the Central government, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, issued a notification announcing a scheme of excise duty relief in respect of certain commodities. Rule 8 authorises the Central Government t exempt by notification any excisable goods from the whole or any part of the duty livable on such goods. The Rule was framed under 5.37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The notification is thereforee, a piece of subordinate legislation. 2. The scheme gave a rebate of 25 per cent of excise on the excess of the base clearance of a manufacturer. Broadly stated the scheme was this. This scheme granted 25 per cent exemption from duty of certain specify goods enumerated in the scheme on the quantity cleared in excess of a certain limit. this limit was to be fixed in a specified number. 3. A base period had to be determined and a base clearance had to be ascertained under the sch...
Gidney Club, New Delhi and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi33; ILR1979Delhi45
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (1) Can Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in Part Iv of the Constitution (Article 47 in this case) be enforced by administrative action by the state This important question along with others is raised by this writ petition on the following facts:(2) Petitioner No. 1 is a Club, which is the property of and an activity of the Delhi Branch of the All India Anglo-indian Association, New Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 is a member of the Club. A license for the retain vend of foreign liquor at a club (bona fide or proprietory) in form L-19 was granted to the Club under Rule I of the Delhi Liquor license Rules, 1976 made under section 58 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applied to Delhi. The license was for one year from 1-4-1977 to 31-3-1978. The relevant parts of section 58 authorising the framing of Rules regulating the sale of liquor are as follows: '58.(1) The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi may, by notification, make rules for the purpose of carrying out the pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »