Delhi Court March 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.
Uniclel Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State Trading Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi203
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) What is the scope of the jurisdiction of the civil court under sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 20 of the Aribtration Act and the effect of its finding on the case referred to arbitrator This is virtually the only surviving question in this appeal. (2) MESSRS. Unicel Limited (appellant) offered to sell to the State Trading Corporation (respondent) by a letter of 26th May, 1970 staple fibre standard Bright Bleached at 46.5d per Kg. containing he following called the 'fall clause' :- 'Unicel agrees that in case business is concluded by the buyers by the end of July 1970 with any reputable manufacturer at a lower price, they will be bound by that lower price.'The offer was accepted along with the 'fall clause' by the State Trading Corporation by letter dated 29th May, 1970. A formal contract was also signed by the parties on 29th May, 1970 inadvertently omitting the 'fall clause' which was, thereforee, added to the formal contract on 30th May, 1970.(3) The State T...
Nirmal Chaudhary Vs. Bishambar Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi26; 13(1977)DLT5; 1978RLR558
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This appeal has been filed by Miss Nirmal Chaudhary against the order dated 2nd August, 1977, passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the certified copy of the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller dated 31-1-1975 which was impugned before it by way of appeal from the said order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller. (2) The learned Addl. Rent Controller had passed an order for ejectment dated 30-1-1976 against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent and held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the said Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). (3) Since the order of the learned Addl. Rent Controller contemplated immediate eviction of the appellant, the appellant applied for certified copy of that order by an urgent application on 2-2-1976. The copy was not ready and...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Madan Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ426
ORDERVyas Dev Misra, J.1. These are twelve applications under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, for grant of special leave to appeal against the orders of acquittal passed in twelve separate cases.2. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi launched prosecutions in these cases under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The courts below in each case found that the Food Inspector had taken for analysis a much shorter quantity than that prescribed by the Rule. The courts, thereforee, held that the Food Inspectors concerned had failed to discharge their duty strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law. Following Rajal Das Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra 1975 FAC 1 : : 1975CriLJ254 the courts acquitted the accused. Now in State of Kerala v. Alassery Mohammed : 1978CriLJ925 decided on February 19, 1978, a larger bench of the Supreme Court has overruled the view taken in Pamnani's case. It is on the ground of this latest pronouncement of t...
Mukand Lal Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ105
ORDERDalip K. Kapur, J.1. This is a revision arising from a conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in which the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The revision has come to this Court after the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by time and accordingly no relief was given by the Additional Sessions Judge. In order to appreciate the question of limitation it is necessary to deal with the history of the case because, as will be apparent, this was not the first time the petitioner had come in appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge.2. The petitioner was initially convicted by Shri J. D. Kapur, Metropolitan Magistrate and on appeal which was Crl. A. 17 of 1976 before Shri P. K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, it was urged that there had been non-compliance with the provisions requiring the accused to be heard on the qu...
Man Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi274
Prakask Narain, J.1. We had heard arguments in this appeal and had also heard the learned counsel for the appellants and two trustees of Shri Moolchand Kharaitiram Hospital Trust in C. M. 153 of 1978 and reserved Judgment. As we proceeded to judgment we noticed that no appeal was competent. We were, thereforee, prima facie, of the view that we would have no jurisdiction to give any opinion, advice or direction by either agreeing with or reversing or modifying the Judgment, of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we directed that the matter be listed for being mentioned. It was so listed on March 3, 1978. We pointed out to counsel that our research showed that no appeal lay against the order of the learned single Judge. Learned counsel took time to study the matter and address us.2. Today we have heard Mr. Anoop Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. He submits that the appeal is maintainable.3. The appellants had filed a petition under Ss. 34 and 37 of the, Indian Trusts Act. 188...
Shakuntala Devi Vs. N.D. Khullar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: 1978RLR289
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) This is a Civil Revision Petition to revise the order dated 2-3-1977 in suit No. 125 of 1976 deciding a preliminary issue framed by the Court and directing the defendant to pay court-fee on a sum of Rs. 2,875 in the following circumstances. (2) The plaintiff was the owner of premises No. F 25 Nizamudin West New Delhi. The defendants were the legal representatives of Sri Daulat Ram who was the tenant of the premises. The tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff by a notice dated 1-9-1975 and a petition for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act was also filed before the Rent Controller, Delhi. It is stated that the eviction order was duly passed and possession was also taken by the landlord on the 30th July 1976. (3) In the meantime the landlord also filed suit No. 125 of 1976 on the 30th June, 1976, in the Court of the Senior Sub. Judge, Delhi for the recovery of Rs. 2,875 with costs. This represented a claim for the arrears of rent of Rs. 2,700 for the period ...
Shamlal/Kallomal Vs. State Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR156
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) Petitioner filed a report with the Police on 26.9.77, that he had let out disputed property to one Radha Rani who had died issueless and her relations were trying to illegally give the premises to Respondent 2. On 3.10.77, a similar report was made by one C.L. Khanna claiming that he was adopted son of husband of Radha Rani and was entitled to occupy premises and to goods bying in the same and that there was a danger to breach of peace. The reports were submitted to the S D.M. On the basis of first report he made an order on 1.10.77, summoning the parties for filing W/Ss on 6.10.77. On the basis of 2nd report he madeanorderon5.10.77, attaching the propenty u/s 146(1) for the reason that there was apprehension of breach of peace. On 1. 10.77, Respondent 2 made an application to S.D.M. saying that possession of dispute property was with them and they be made a party in the case, Relying on Hakim Singh v. Girdhar Singh 1975. Rajdhani L.R. 507, this application wasrejec...
Banarsi Dass Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: 11(1978)DLT14
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The assessed, a Hindu undivided family of which the Karta is Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta, Meerut, filed two applications R. A. Nos. 945 and 946 of 1968-69, before the Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', under Section 66(1) of the Act, arising Out of the Income-tax Appeals Nos. 1978 and 1979 of 1963-64, relating to the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. Similarly, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central), New Delhi, filed two applications, R. A. Nos. 12 and 13 of 1968-69, arising out of the same Income-tax Appeals Nos. 1978 and 1979 of 1963-64, relating to the assessment years 1956-57 and 195 7-5 8 under Section 66 (1) of the Act. (3) By a common order, dated 28th March, 1969. the Appellate Tribunal referred seven questions of law to this Court as arising out of the ord...
Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1978
Reported in: [1978]113ITR817(Delhi)
This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A, to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The assessed, a Hindu undivided family of which the karta is Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta, Meerut, filed two applications, R.A. Nos. 945 and 946 of 1968-69, before the Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A, under section 66(1) of the Act, arising out of the Income-tax Appeals Nos. 1978 and 1979 of 1963-64, relating to the assessment year 1956-57 and 1957-58. Similarly, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central), New Delhi, filed two applications, R.A. Nos. 12 and 13 of 1968-69, arising out of the same Income-tax Appeals Nos. 1978 and 1979 of 1963-64, relating to the assessment years 1956-57 and section 66(1) of the Act.By a common order, dated March 28, 1969, the Appellate Tribunal referred seven questions of law to this court as arising out of the orders of the Tribunal, dated March 2, 1968, in the aforesaid...
Swaraj Garg Vs. K.M. Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Delhi296; 14(1978)DLT18b; 1978RLR525
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. When the husband and the wife are both gainfully employed at two different places from before their marriage, where will be the matrimonial home after the marriage? With more and more women taking up jobs and wanting to retain them even after their marriage, the question becomes increasingly important, topical and controversial. It has arisen in this case and requires consideration in some depth,2. The wife, Swaraj, was working as a teacher at Sunam, District Sangrur, from 1956 and was the Headmistress of Government High School, when she was examined as a witness in 1969. The parties were married on 12th July, 1964 at Sunam. The husband was abroad for some years and though he seems to be well qualified he did not get a satisfactory job in India. He was employed in M/s. Hastinapur Metals from Sept., 1966 to Sept., 1967 at Rs. 50/_ p.m. without any allowances and from 14th Sept., 1967 by' Master Sa the and Kothari at Rs- 600/- P.M. without any other allowances. The f...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »