Delhi Court August 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.
Ravindernath Sharma Vs. Nagesh Sharma Alias Rinkoo (Minor)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT23; 1978RLR581
H.L. Anand, J. (1) These two Revision Petitions are directedagainst a common order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, granting interim maintenance to the wife and minor child of the petitioner,during the pendency of their claims for maintenance, under Sections 18 and 20 respectively of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.1956, for short, the Act.(2) The impugned order is assailed on two grounds, namely :- (1)That there was no jurisdiction in the Court to grant interimmaintenance in the absence of a specific provision in theAct in that behalf. (2)In any event, the conditions requisite for the grant ofinterim relief were not satisfied and the order was. thereforee, not justified. (3) Sections 18 and 20 of the Act are in these terms :- '18.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hinduwife, whether married before or after the commencement ofthis Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. (2)A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separate...
Om Parkash Mangal Vs. Urmil Mangal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT216
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) Shri 0m Parkash Mangal, the husband brought a petition for dissolution of the marriage against his wife Mrs. Urmil Mangal by grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the act) on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The petition was dismissed by Shri S.C. Jain, learned additional District Judge, Delhi on 15th of December, 1977 against which the present appeal is directed. (2) The marriage between the parties was celeberated on 2.10.1968. The petititioner and the respondent had been living as husband and wife at No. 719/42, Chowk Mahabir, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 31, up to 19th of July 1974 during which period two female issues have born out of the wedlock of the parties. It is unnecessary for me to refer to the allegations relating to cruelty as that ground is not pressed in the present appeal. The case of the petitioner on the ground of desertion is that the respondent has been leaving the house of the pet...
Sham Krishan Chandiwala and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT83
Prakash Narain, J.(1) Land in village Tekhand in the Union Territory of Delhi was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on November 13, 1959. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was: made on 22-8-62. The Land Acquisition Collector published his Award No. 1 343 on June 30, 1962. According to the Land Acquisition Collector the land in the village was of several categories, namely, Aabi, Chahi, Rosli, Banjar Jadid, Banjar Kadim and Gairmurnkin. For Aabi and Chahi, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the Rate of Rs. 2000.00 per bigha, for Rosli and Banjar, Jadid he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500.00 per bigha. For Banjar Kadim land he awarded Rs. 800.00 per bigha and for Gairmurnkin land Rs. 600.00 per bigha. (2) The appellants' land was also acquired under the aforesaid Award No. 1343. Sham Krishan's land bore Khasra Nos. 112, 113, 114, 716/115, 717/115,718/116,719/116.11...
Ram Swarup Etc. Vs. Asharfi Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT65
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The landlord, Prabhu Dayal, brought an application for eviction of his tenant Asharfi Devi, the present respondent. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the tenant on 11th January, 1962. The property is situated in a slum area. Under s. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (the Act) as originally enacted the landlord was required to apply for permission of the competent authority to execute the eviction order. Prabhu Dayal applied. The competent authority did not give permission. The eviction order thereforee could not be executed. (2) On 3rd May, 1965, Prabhu Dayal brought a suit for possession and mesne profits against Asharfi Devi in the court of the subordinate judge on the ground that Asharfi Devi had ceased to be a tenant by reason of the eviction order passed by the controller and that in the eye of law she was a trespasser. Asharfi Devi appeared in court. She contested the suit. Her chief defense was that the...
G.D. Mining and Export Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS239D
ORDERS.S. Chadha, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order of the Customs Authorities re-opening the order permitting clearance of the goods imported and ultimately confiscating the goods imported under Section 141(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs in lieu of confiscation and declining to refund the difference in duty without any claim within the statutory period.2. The bare facts to which there is no dispute are these : Under the Govt. of India Barter Scheme a Public Notice No. 58 dated June 25, 1968 was issued in terms whereof exporters were allowed to import certain specified items and 'stainless steel angles' was one of such items in the list thereof. The petitioners applied for and were granted two Import licenses bearing No. 8430108 and 8430109 both dated September 6, 1968; The said two Import licenses were issued to the Minerals and Metals Trading' Corporation (India) Ltd. Two letters...
Hakam Singh Vs. Jagat Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT117; 1979RLR106
H.L. Anand, J. (1) These petitions u/s 25(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, sfor hort, the Act, by two occupants of different portions of the same building, belonging to the respondent assail a common order of the Controller by which, while refusing them leave to contest petitions for their eviction, they have been ordered to be evicted from the premises in their respective occupation. (2) The respondent who is admittedly a public servant, in occupation of Government accommodation allotted to him by virtue of his employment, sought the eviction of the petitioners under Section 14A(1) of the Act on the ground that by a general and a special order, made by Government, the respondent has been required to vacate the Government accommodation or in default to pay penal rent, and that this entitled the respondent to evict the petitioners, as the respondent was the owner of the property. Leave to contest the petitions was sought, inter alia, on the ground that each of the premises had been let...
Avinash Chander Vs. Rama Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT114; 1979RLR98
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a tenant's revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller dated 29th November, 1977.(2) Shrimati Rama Devi, the landlady, made an application to the Controller for the eviction of her tenant Avinash Chander on the ground of bona fide requirement specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub.-s. (1) s. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). The application was tried in a summary fashion under the procedure specified in s. 25B of Chapter Iiia of the Act. As required by sub-s. (2) of s. 25B the Controller issued summons in the form specified in the Third Schedule. The tenant was served on 18th of October, 1977. He did not obtain leave from the Controller to contest the application for eviction within 15 days of the service of the summons on him. On 28th November, 1977, the tenant appeared through his counsel before the Controller as that was the date fixed in the case. Finding that the tenant had not applied for leave to contest the ap...
Shiv Charan Vs. H.L. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT220
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellant, Shiv Charan, filed a petition against the respondent for his ejectment from a room and a kitchen occupied by him on a monthly rent of Rs. 10.30P. The appellant stated that he himself was formerly in occupation of a tenanted accommodation but he was made to vacate it. Since then, he was living in the present premises along with other members of his family thirteen in all which were. insufficient for their requirement. He, thereforee, needed the premises in dispute for the purpose of his own residence and the residence of the members of his family. The Rant Controller, Delhi by his order dated April 27, 1972, dismissed the petition because it was found that the requirement of the appellent was not bona fide. Since the family of the appellant was a joint family, the most natural course for him to adopt would be to seek vacant possession of the two rooms which were available in the very house in which the petitioner and his family were for the present livin...
Mir Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT121
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The appellants had a share as owners in land bearing Khasra Nos. -61/2, 431, 460/2, 456/2 and 436/2 in the revenus estats of Mahammedpur Munirka. The extent of the share of the appellannt. it is not disputed, words out to an area of 10 bights 12-3/16 biswas. The preseat appeal is with regard to the compensation claimed by the appellants for acquisition of their land.(2) Bighas 12 bids was of land inthe revenue estate of Mohammedpur Munirka was notified for intended acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on November 13, 1959. The acquisition was proposed to be made for the Pianned Development of Delhi. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was Issued on December 31, 1962. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award No. 1560 on April 16, 1963 fixing the market value at Rs 2500.00 per bigha. Dissatisfied with the compensation offerred on the basis of the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants asked for a refere...
Asa Ram and Chela Ram Vs. Man Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT253
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Bishan Sarup, the respondent herein, was a tenant in a shop under Man singh. Man singh filed a suit for eviction of the respondent on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for reconstruction. A decree was passed in favor of the landlord which was finally upheld by the High Court and the tenant was ordered to vacate the premises on or before 15th April 1961, the landlord was to restore possession of the shop after reconstruction. After the shops had been reconstructed the respondent filed an application for restoration of the possession of the shop. This application was contested by Man Singh on various grounds but his objections were rejected, He fought the litigation up to the High court but without success. After the case was decided againat Man Singh Chanda Singh filed objections alleging, inter alia, that he had purchased the vacant plot from Man Singh and built the shope thereon. He took a number of objections to the execution of the order, but h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »