Delhi Court March 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.
Mohan Lal Indoria Vs. Babu Ram Solanki
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT12
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) The only question which arises for decision in this election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People. Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling in question theelection of Shri Babu Ram Solanki to the Metropolitan council for Delhi. from Constituency No. 45-Ram, Nagar is whether the respondent may be said to be guilty of corrupt practice contemplated by sub-section of Section 123 of the Act and by reason of the alleged fact of. the , of, or appeal to religious symbol of Durga Mata seated on a lion visible on a board affixed at Chowk opposite Hanuman Mandir, Multani Dhanda, Delhi, within the said constituency. (2) The total number of seats in the Metropolitan Council for Delhi as provided in section 3 of the Delhi Administration.Act, 1966 to be filled by persons chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies is 56. By virtue of section 9 of the said Act, the provisions cantained in Farts Iii to Xi of the Act and of any rul...
Madhav Trading Company Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: ILR1978Delhi74
M.S. Joshi, J.(1) This suit was instituted on 14-12-1973 by Madhav Trading Company, a partnership firm carrying on business at Calcutta, against the Union of India, (defendant No. 1), Salzgitter Stahl Gmbh, a West German Company (defendant No. 2) and Madhav Trading Company, a partnership firm carrying on business of Rs. 1,06,999.86. It was alleged by the plaintiff that it was a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act. On 20-1-1971, the 1st defendant, Union of India, invited tenders, for the supply of approximately 4,197 tonnes of steel sheets; It was stated in the invitation to tender, inter alia, that a(2) Defendant No. 1 conceded in its written-statement that while submitting its tender defendant No. 2 had intimated to the Union of India that the plaintiff was its authorised agent in connection with the tender enquiry in question, still it offered resistance to the suit contending, infer alia, that while returning the signed copies of the contract...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›