Delhi Court August 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.
inder Parkash Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi87; ILR1979Delhi238; 1979RLR253
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by a medical student, challenges the action of the University of Delhi and the authorities of the Maulana Azad Medical College, cancelling the admission of the petitioner as a medical student, on the ground that he had obtained admission on the basis of a false representation that he belonged to the scheduled Caste and raises, inter alia, an important question as to whether the right to higher or technical or professional education could be treated as an integral part of either the fundamental right or freedom of expression and speech or to carry on any trade or profession and be themselves enforceable as fundamental rights. (2) In the year 1971, the petitioner, who was admittedly eligible lor admission for a medical course, was admitted in the Maulana Azad Medical College, against a seat reserved for a scheduled cas'c candidate, on the basis of a representation in his application that he belonged l...
Bhagwati Devi Vs. Ram Doss
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR30
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) There is abundant and unimpeachable evidence on the record to prove that the Respondent Ram Dass is the owner of the property in dispute. The property in dispute was previously owned by one Mst. Zeenat Bee. Ram Dass had obtained a decree for Rs 1,815 against Zeenat Bee. In execution of the said decree, the property in dispute was put to auction and it was purchased by Ram Dass. The Custodian of Evacuee Property filed objections against the sale of the property on the ground that the property belonged to the evacuee. Pyare Lal, husband of Bhagwati Devi, petitioner No. 1, and father of Ram Kishan, petitioner No. 2, had also filed objections against the above sale. The objections against the above sale. The objections were dismissed by the Sub Judge and against that order an appeal was taken to the High Court by the Custodian of evacuee property. The appeal was heard by Mr. Justice P.D. Sharma and on 8th August 1963 he dismissed the appeal of the Custodian (Ex. AWI/2...
Chowdhury and Gulzar Singh Vs. Frick India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi97; ILR1978Delhi753
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The two legal questions arise in this case. Whether the award is liable to be set aside when the two arbitrators appointed by the parties fail to appoint an Umpire i.e. they do not comply with clause 2 of First Schedule to the Arbitration Act. In other words, whether clause 2 of First Schedule of the Arbitration Act is mandatory or directory. (2)Whether there is any period of limitation for an arbitrator to file an award in court.(2) M/S. Chaudhury and Gulzar Singh, petitioners by their letter dated 12th September, 1969 and M/s. Frick India Limited, respondents by their letter dated 6th March, 1970 appointed Shri D. Dutt and Sbri S. L. Nayar as Arbitrators respectively to decide the various disputes amongst themselves. The arbitrators entered upon the reference on 27th May, 1970 and made their award on 19th May, 1972. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings the petitioners and the respondents jointly made an application under Section 28 of the Arbitratio...
Wendger and Co. and Others Vs. District Valuation Officer, New Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-1978
Reported in: (1978)8CTR(Del)16; [1978]115ITR648(Delhi)
PRAKASH NARAIN J. - By this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India what is challenged is a valuation report dated July 20, 1974, submitted by the District Valuation Officer to WT/ITO, Special Circle XI, New Delhi in pursuance of the reference made to him by the WT/ITO under the provisions of s. 16A of the W.T. Act, 1957. The fair market value assessed at Rs. 32,80,000 by the impugned report is of a property known as 'Wenger Building' in Block A, Connaught Place, New Delhi.The aforesaid building was constructed by one Sobha Singh of New Delhi on a plot of land leased to him by the then Secretary of State for India in 1924. The lease was in perpetuity. After constructing the building Sobha Singh let out diverse portions of the billing to different persons. Wenger & Co., predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, took on rent from Sobha Singh the following portions of the said building :(a) Confectionery shop on the ground floor.(b) A hall with veranda on the first floor, a...
Mukat Behari Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT228
(1) In furtherance of an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the award made by Shri B.S. Sekhon and dated 6th Oct. 1975, was failed in court. Thereafter, the applicant plaintiff filed 1. A. No. 927/76 objecting to the award. The two main grounds raised were that the award had been made export and after the date for making the same had expired. It appears on the facts that the parties had at one time agreed to the extension of time for making the award, but the extended time also expired on 30th Nov., 1974, whereas the award was given on 6th Oct., 1975. (2) Both these points were contested on behalf of the Union of India and the following issues were framed on the pleadings : 1. Whether the award is bad because it was made 3' years after the appointment of the arbitrator without extension of time 2. Whether the arbitrator has mis-conducted the proceedings 3. Whether he award is liable to be set aside on any of the grounds covered by issue I and 27 4. Whether the a...
Dlf United Ltd Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT251
Parkash Narain and Leila Seth, JJ.(1) These two first appeals, Rfa No. 146-D of 1966 and Rfa No. 147-D of 1966, are directed against the judgments/awards of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 16th May, 1966 in L.A.C. No. 733 of 1963 and 692 of 1963 by which the rate of the compensation was assessed at Rs. 5450.00 per bigha.(2) By a notification under section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the said Act), dated 13th November, 1959, lands in village Sarai Shahji was notified for intended acquisition. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was made on 1st February, 1962. The purpose of the acquisition was the 'Planned Development of Delhi'. Thereafter, the land acquisition collector took proceedings to acquire the land. In R.F.A. 146-D of 1966 the appellant is Dlf united Ltd. and the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 45, 46, 48/2, 49/2, 50/2, and 143/84 measuring 7 bighas 3 bids was is covered by the above mentioned notification. In Rfa NO. 147-D/...
Mahavir Singh Vs. Kamal Narain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR159
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This revision raises the question whether an order passed by the Controller under subsection (4) of section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, granting leave to the tenant to contest the application for eviction is subject to a revision by this Court under the proviso to sub-section (8) thereof. In a decision of this Court reported in Devi Singh v Chaman Lal. 1977 R L R. 566, it was held that subsection (8) and its proviso read together prohibit appeal or second appeal against an order of the recovery of possession, but permit a revision only against such order and no other. The same view was endorsed by this Court in Bhagwati Parshad v. Om Parkash 1979. R. L.R. 26. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tae view taken in these decisions deserved to be reconsidered by a larger bench. T he proviso to sub-section (8) of section 25B provides that the High Court may for the purpose of satisfying itself whether 'an order made by the Controller under t...
R.P. Jaiswal Vs. Hans Raj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR17
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Petitioner is tenant in 2nd floor since 1.12.68 while landlord is occupying 1st floor & 3rd floor. On 11.5.77. landlord sued petitioner for eviction u/s 25B, of Rent Act on the ground of personal requirement. Para 3 onwards, judgment is ;-(2) The landlord in para 18 (a) of the petition alleged that he was previously a tenant in house No 4790, Haus Qazi, Phatak Namak, Delhi and was living there with his wife, his children, brother's widow and sister's son Jagdish Khanna and his family, that after the house in question was built he with his family shifted to the first floor of the house and his brother's widow Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna and his family continued to reside in house No. 4790, Hauz Qazi, that on 29th March, 1976 the landlord of house No 4790 Hauz Qazi filed an application for eviction against him and his application was allowed and he vacated the house on 31st December 1976 that Parbati Devi and Jagdish Khanna with his family shifted to reside with...
The Official Liquidator of Liberty Finance Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas287(Delhi); ILR1979Delhi128
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) C. A. 137 of 1974 is an application taken out by the Official Liquidator under Sections 446 and 447 of the Companies Act for a payment order for Rs. 33,173.87 jointly and severally against the three respondents. C.A. No. S. 137/74 & 518/77 Respondents I and 3 have been set ex parte but respondent No. 2 has appeared through counsel. He filed a reply on 25th April, 1977 in which he took among others the ground that the claim of the company was time barred. There upon the applicant filed a rejoinder on 2nd May, 1977 staling that there was no bar of limitation for. the relief claimed in the application and that in any event he was entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Subsequently on 19th July, 77 the applicant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being C. A. 518/77 seeking condensation of the delay in filing C. A. 137 of 1974. The facts alleged in the application are as follows:(2) M./S. Liberty Finance (P) Ltd. (now i...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Chaman Lal Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi108; ILR1978Delhi762
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) These are 130 writ petitions filed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee (the Committee). All these writ petitions raise a common question of law about the interpretation of s. 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 (the Act). I shall take the facts of C.W. No. 860 of 1969 as fairly representative of these writ petitions. (2) The first floor and barsati of property No. 162 Golf Links, New Delhi bearing No. IV-P/Q-178 was assessed to house-tax at an annual value of Rs. 4716.00 less ten per cent for repairs for the year 1966-67 and for the years immediately preceding thereto on the basis of actual rent paid by the tenant in occupation of the said premises. Sometime at the end of 1967 it came to light that there had been a change in the tenancy with respect to the first floor and the barsati of the said building and the same had been let out at an increased annual rent of Rs. 7800.00 with effect from 1st May, 1963. Consequently, the Committee passed a resolution d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »