Delhi Court December 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.
Civil Miscellaneous (Original) Tikka Shatrujit Singh and ors. Vs. Brig ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi321
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is an application on behalf of defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule Ii, Order 32 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint and/or dismissing the same. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, (defendant No. 1) is the father and Maharani Gita Devi (plaintiff No. 3) is his wife, plaintiffs I and 2 are their minor sons while plaintiff No. 4 and defendant No. 2 are their daughters.. The plaintiffs filed this suit for partition on 1st December, 1977 alleging that the plaintiffs and defendants are the members of the Mitakshara Hindu un-divided Family, that plaintiffs Nos. I and 2 and defendant No. 1 are the co-parceners and the properties in suit are co-parcenary properties governed by the law of Mitakshara, and are partible, that plaintiffs I and 2 as co-parceners are entitled to sue for partition. The minor sons have sued through their mother as next friend. It is also alleged that the two daughters plaintiff No. 4 and defendant No. 2 are ...
Goodwill India Ltd. Vs. Jagir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi328
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of respondents I and 2 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 3rd February, 1978 passed on an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The applicants respondents 1 and 2 allege that the petitioner filed three petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, (1) against the present respondent (2) against Sardar Ajaib Singh and others and (3) against Sardar Kripal Singh and others, that Sardar Ajaib Singh informed them on 1st May, 1978 about t(2) The petitioners have contended (1) that the present application is barred by time, (2) that there is no provision in the Arbitration Act to set aside an order passed ex-parte under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and (3) that there is no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 3rd February, 1978. (3) Under Article 123 of the Limitation Act an application to set aside ex-parte or...
Central Bank of India Vs. India Mica Grinders (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT53
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) This is an application by the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') under Section 446 of the Companies Act seeking permission to institute a suit against the respondents No. 1 to 5, the first respondents India Mica Grinders Pvt. Ltd., being a company which is being wound up by the order of this Court dated 24-5-1976 in Company Petion No. 48 of 1968. Respondents 2 and 3 are the directors of the company. Respondents 4 and 5 appear to be related to the directors. According to the applicant the bank had advanced money by way of loan to the company on the basis of promissory notes, letters of hypothecations and pledge of goods as well as letters of guarantee and mortgage by way of deposit of title deeps created in its favor, by respondents No. 1 to 5, the details of which it is unnecessary to reproduce here. One of the pieces of land on title deeds of which are alleged to be deposited by way of security in favor of the bank is situated in Moja ...
Tilak Raj and Shanti Devi Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ93; ILR1979Delhi267
F.S. Gill, J. (1) Appeal Nos. 392 and 423 of 1976 have arisen from the two judgments of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 8th and 12th of November, 1976, whereby Tilak Raj, Smt. Shanti Devi and Haveli Ram appellants were convicted for the murder of Brij Moban and each one of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Tilak Raj was also convicted and sentenced under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Since both the appeals originate from the common judgments, they will, thereforee, be disposed of by this one composite judgment. (2) Smt. Shanti Devi appellant is the mother of Tilak Raj appellant, while Haveli Ram appellant (since deceased) was his father. They all lived in House No. 790, Indra Colony, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. (3) The prosecution case is that on 13-4-75 at about 8.45 P.M. Haveli Ram and his wife Shanti Devi were sitting on a cot in front of their house in the street- Amar Singh Public Witness , while driving his three wheeler scooter, came there and wanted to pass by the s...
Azra Seema Iyengar Vs. J.P.S. Oberoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi101
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a student of V. A. (Previous) of the University of Delhi, in the Department of Sociology, is directed against orders of the Head of the Department of Sociology detaining the petitioner on the ground that on, account of shortfall in attendance for the full-time regular course of study, she was not eligible- to appear for the M. A. (Previous) Examination in Sociology in April, 1978.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the Petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner has been a student of M. A. (Previous) In the Department of Sociology of the University of Delhi for a two-year course. The examination at the end of the first academic year of the course was scheduled to commence on April 22, 1978. On Jan. 17, 1978, a notice was put up on the notice board requiring the petitioner and a number of other 'students to meet the members of the Committee on Jan. 20, 1978, in connection with their 'tutorial attendance'. T...
N.N. Khanna Vs. Leela Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT97
Leila Seth, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant under Sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1953 (Act 59 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is directed against the order dated 7th May, 1977 of the Rent Controller refusing leave to the tenant to contest the petition for eviction. The rent Controller made an order for recovery of possession of the suit premises in favor of the landlady and gave six months' time to the petitioner within which to hand over vacant and peaceful possession. The rent Controller while disposing of the matter observed as follows : 'WHILEparting, I may add a note of advice that the parties may reconsider the proposal of inter-changing their flats towards their healthy relations which shall also enable the petitioner to live on the ground floor immediately.'(2) The brief facts are that in August, 1970 Mrs. Leela Malhotra, owner-landlady of property No. C/26, defense Colony, New Delhi let out the ground f...
Pratul Chaudhari and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ103
ORDERDalip K. Kapur, J.1. The petitioners before this Court have been convicted for an offence under Section 448 I. P. C. They were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of paying the fine were to undergo R.I. for two months; they were also ordered to restore possession of the disputed room to the complainant. In view of the points involved in this revision petition it is unnecessary to give details of the offence because this revision is not concerned with the merits of the conviction.2. The conviction of the petitioners was recorded by Shri R.N. Jindal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 30-7-1976 and the petitioners thereafter appealed to Shri Mahesh Chandra, 13th Additional Sessions Judge Delhi who did not decide the appeal on merits but directed the remand of the case back to the magistrate on the view that the learned Magistrate had not granted the petitioners the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and furthermore had not in- dependently heard ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›