Delhi Court September 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.
Panna Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT248
R.N. Aggrarwal, J. (1) On 24th May, 1978 Sub-Inspector Shyam Lal made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, Delhi that he was on patrol duty at Nicolson Road and he saw Panna Lal @ Panna running away on seeing the police party, that he chased Panna Lal and succeeded in apprehending him. it was further reported that a dagger was seized from the hand of Panna Lal and a separate case under the Arms Act has been registered against him. It was further alleged in the report that Panna Lal has been challenged in a number of robbery, stabbing and hurt cases and he is a man of desperate character and his being at large without security is hazardous to the community. (2) On a perusal of the report submitted by the police the sub-Divisional . Magistrate satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against Panna Lal and, accordingly, issued a notice to Panna Lal to show cause as to why he be not bound down under section 110 to maintain peace for a period of one year. The Su...
Pal JaIn Vs. Raj Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1978
Reported in: 1978RLR607
Leila Seth, J. (1) This is a second appeal arising out of an order passed u/s 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Brief facts are : (2) On 20th October, 1969, the respondent Smt. Raj Rani, filed an application for eviction of the tenant appellant, Siri Pal Jain. In the said application it was alleged that the tenant was in occupation of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 that a decree for Rs. 270 towards the rent for the period 1st February, 1967 to 31st October, 1967 had been passed by the Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Delhi on 27th August, 1968; further besides this decretal amount, rent w.e.f 1st November, 1967 was also due and the tenant-appellant had not paid it in spite of service of the notice of demand. An ex-parte decree was passed on 17th December, 1969. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on 10th August, 1970. Thereafter, the respondent-landlady took actual p...
Tara Chand Vs. Holkar Mal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi160; 14(1978)DLT238
Prakash Naraian, J.(1) Respondent no. 1 in the two appeals before us, filed a suit against Bhani Ram Gupta (appellant in R.F.A. No. 42 of 1966). Tara Chand (appellant in R.F A. No. 7 of 1966) and Kirpa Ram for rendition of accounts pertaining to a portion of property known as Medgunj' on Bahadurgarh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Tara Chand is the natural son of Holkar Mal but had been adopted by Harbilas, a brother of Holkar Mal. By a sale-deed dated December 15, 1955 registered on December 16, 1955, executed by one Haji Abdul Gani (Exhibit D. 1), two-thirds of the property known as Medgunj was shown as sold to Holkar Mal Tara Chand and one-third to Bhani Ram Gupta, Kirpa Ram and others. The consideration for the sale was Rs 2,50,000.00 out of which Rs. 2,35,000.00 was paid by Bhani Ram Gupta on behalf of the purchasers in the presence of the Sub- Regstrar on December 16, 1955 at the time of the registration of the sale-deed. A partition was effected by a registered-deed of partition dated...
Aero System Vs. Jagannath Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT234
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is an application under Order 1. Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of Anil Kumar Rampal son of Shri Kundan Lal Rampal for impleading him as a party to the suit.(2) The plaintiff has filed the suit for various reliefs virtually amounting to specific performance of an agreement dated 20th August, 1969, between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 on the allegations that the President of India granted a sub-lease of plot No. 15, Block B, West End Colony, New Delhi, to Shri K.L Rampal, defendant No. 2, that defendant No. 2 entered into a registered agreement dated 20th August, 1969, with the plaintiff, whereby it was agreed that the plaintiff would construct a building, and after completion he would obtain a completion certificate and inform defendant No. 2 and on being informed of obtaining such certificate the defendant No. 2 within 30 days, time being presence of the contract, pay of the plaintiff a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5 lakhs...
Ved Rattan and Bros. Vs. Janak Raj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT244; 1979RLR170
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a tenant's appeal. The only question in this appeal is : 'Has the tenant enjoyed the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) the Act ?(2) On March 15, 1976 the landlord Janak Raj, respondent issued a notice to the tenant Ved Rattan Bros , appellants in this case demanding arrears of rent from November 1965 to February, 1966 at the agreed rate of Rs. 200 per month in respe(3) On May 16, 1976 the tenant made a reply to the notice. He complained that in November 1965 the landlord had forcibly occupied a portion of the demised premises and removed the tenant's goods there from. He said : 'You have, thereforee, become dis-entitled to the entire rent of the premises till vou restore possession'.(4) On May 21, 1976, the landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant was in arrears and had not paid rent inspire of service of notice of demand onim. During the pendency of the eviction case the Additional Controller made...
Sudhir BhasIn Vs. Babu Ram Gupta, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi280
F.S. Gill, J. (1) The present petitioner, Sudhir Bhasin, has alleged that he, Babu Ram Gupta, respondent No. 1 and Jagatri Lal Bhasin, respondent No. 4 are the partners of the firm constituted under the name and style of Sitapur Theatres with its head office at Delhi. The partnership deed was executed on 19-11-1965. Clause 25 of this deed contains a provision for referring the disputes to arbitration . (2) Disputes arose between the parties. The present petitioner made an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring these disputes to arbitration. The said application came up before M. S. Joshi, J., who allowed the same and referred the disputes to the sole arbitration of a Retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court. (3) Along with the main petition, Sudhir Bhasin, also moved an application for the appointment of a Receiver as he apprehended that Babu Ram Gupta, respondent No. 1, would misappropriate the partnership property. Vide order dated 30-11-1976, the petition...
Hari Rajkisbore Vs. Raj Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1978
Reported in: 1979RLR103
Avadh Behari, J. (1) This is a tenant's appeal. The appellant Hari Raj Kishore is a tenant of the respondent-landlord Raj Kumar. The tenanted premises consist of a room with common latrine in house No. 3326, Kucha Kashgiri, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. (2) The landlord applie for permission of the Competent Authority under S. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, By order dated 29 9.72 the Authority granted permission. The landlord brought an eviction petition against the tenant on 23.12.73 on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The Controller made an order requiring the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within one month and on his doing so he held that the eviction petition will stand dismissed. The tenant deposited the arrears of rent. The eviction petition accordingly stood dismissed. (3) The tenant again committed default in the payment of rent. He fell into arrears again. The landlord filed another petition on 12.3.74 complaining of second default by the tenant in the ...
Manifold Machines (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT231
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The question in these proceedings is as regards the power of an Arbitrator to award interest from the date of claim till the date of decree. The respondent-corporation on 1st March, 1973, placed an order with the petitioner for the supply of Bitumen Storage Tank of 10 M.T. capacity. The petitioner supplied the Tank. But it appears that a complaint was lodged with the Vigilance Department of the Corporation about the sub-standard supply of the Tank. The concerned file regarding the claim of the petitioner was, thereforee, seized by the Vigilance Department, but the case was closed by the Vigilance Department and the file was returned to the Engineering Department on 7th March, 1975. (2) In the mean time the petitioner filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. On 23rd April, 1975, Mr. S.P. Kapil, Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was appointed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to decide and...
Thaneshwar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ94; 15(1979)DLT245; ILR1979Delhi170; 1979RLR46
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The Background : The objects and reasons of the law of preventive detention and the statutory content of it have recently undergone a sea change. While clauses (3) to (7) of Article 22 read with Article 21 enabled Parliament to validly enact a law relating to preventive detention, the statutes relating to preventive detention from 1950 onwards were generally aimed at those who were a danger to the security of the State or maintenance of public order. Later the law was broadened to strike at anti-social activities and economic offences also. Recently there was a general feeling against the preventive detention law so far as it could be used against political offenders. Not only the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) was repealed, but a greatly liberalised version of it proposed by a Bill to be inserted into the Criminal Procedure Code was also withdrawn by the Government in Parliament. Steps had already been taken to separate preventive detention le...
B.N. Mittal Vs. Goswami
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: 1978RLR601
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This is a second appeal u/s 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is brought against an order made by the Rent Control Tribunal by which the defense of the tenant to a landlord's petition for recovery of possession was ordered to be struck out. The Additional Rent Controller had declined to strike out the defense, and his order was reversed by the Tribunal. (2) The landlord's petition for recovery of possession was based on the ground that he needed the premises for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family dependent upon him, and, also on the ground that the tenant had caused substantial damage to the premises. On 3rd September 1974 Controller made an order u/s 15(2) of the Act. He ordered the tenant to deposit arrears of rent with effect from 1st September, 1973 at the rate of Rs. 270 per month with him one month, and to continue to deposit rent at that rate month by months by the 15th day of each succeeding month. It appears from t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »