Delhi Court September 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.
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi Vs. Marshal Produce Brokers ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi249; 15(1979)DLT13
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This reference made under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the Chief Controlling revenue Authority, Delhi, has arisen in the following circumstances :(2) The instrument of Lease made on twentieth day of November 1975 between Dr. Sarwan Singh Sidhu Karta H. U. F. and other (the landlords) and M/s. Marshall Produce Brokers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (the lessees) and drawn up non-judicial stamps of the value of Rs. 535 was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi. In consideration of the monthly rent of Rs. 4.455 and of the convenanits, conditions and agreement contained in the deed, the landlords had granted lease for three years of a flat known as Flat No. 302 in the building called as the New Delhi House situated at 27, Bara Khamba Roard. New Delhi. A Sum of Rs. 53,460 had been paid as advance rent adjustable in twenty four equal Installments, i.e. Rs. 2,227.50 per month. In addition to the monthly rent, the lessees had agreed to deposit and alw...
Kul Bhusan Chopra Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ86Del
ORDERH.L. Anand, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by an officer of a Nationalised Bank, now under suspension, is directed against the order of suspension of the petitioner ' pending disciplinary action' and raises some important questions as to whether a Nationalised Bank would be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as to the stage at which and the circumstances in which as officer of the Bank could be suspended, pending disciplinary action, whether the right to receive salary would be property within the meaning of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India and as to whether non-payment of salary by virtue of an improper order of suspension from service could attract the fundamental right to property.2. On the material date, the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager of the Patiala Guru Branch of the Punjab National Bank, a nationalised Banking institution, respondent No. 1. Pursuant to certain reports a...
Amolak Singh JaIn Vs. Krishna Misra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1978
Reported in: 14(1978)DLT258
M.S. Joshi, J.(1) Property bearing No. N-8, Kailash Colony, New Delhi was sold by public auction for Rs. l,02,000.00 on 28-11-1974. The auction took place in execution of a decree favoring Amolak Singh. The judgment-debtors preferred an application dated 22-12-1977 for setting aside of that sale under order 21 Rule 90 read with Sections 41 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of material irregularities and fraud. The said application (E.A. 405/77) was listed before the court on 2-1-1978 but because neither of the parties to the matter were present it was ordered to be re-listed on 3-1-1978. On that day again there was no appearance and the application was, thereforee, dismissed in default. The instant application, E.A. 49/78, has been preferred for restoration of E.A. 405/77.(2) Stated briefly, the judgment-debtors' case is that the application sought to be restored (E.A. 405/77) was filed on 23-12-1977 and copies thereof 'were served on the decree-holder and the auctio...
Shashl Kumar Nayak Vs. Raj Laxmi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1978
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT18
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This petition by Shri Shashi Knmar Nayak has arisen in the following Circumstances. On 20th December, 1976, the res- respondent herein, Smt. Raj Laxmi, filed an application against her husband Shri Shashi Kumar Nayak under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. An order was made by the Magistrate for issuing summons to the husband both in the ordinary way and by registered post. The notices were not received back. On 8th February, 1977, Shri A. K. Srivastava wrote in the order that for some personal reason he did not wish to try the petition and he forwarded the papers to the Sessions Judge for transfer of the case to some other court. The case was transferred to the Court of Shri J. P. Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate. On 1st April, 1977, the court passed an order for issuing summons to the husband both in the ordinary course as well as by registered acknowledgment due post for 7th May, 1977. Summonses were issued to the husband both in the...
Baldeep Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1978
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi72
Leila Seth, J. (1) We had accepted this writ petition on 18th September, 1978 and directed the respondents to set the detenu at liberty. The reasons are now being recorded. (2) The detention in this case was to prevent the smuggling of hashish. Human ingenuity konws no bounds. A novel method of hashish smuggling has been referred to in the grounds of detention. The hashish was being concealed in fork lift tyres, which could not be opened except with some special apparatus, which were being exported out of India. (3) Baldeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) was apprehended on the 20th of April, 1978. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had conducted a search at his residence at Hardiyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, followed by a search at the factory premises. The detenu's wife not knowing the whereabout of her husband, sent a telegram on 21st April, 1978 to the Department of Revenue Intelligence to try and trace her husband. A bail application, under Section 437 ...
Kuldip Singh Vs. Court on Its Own Motion
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-1978
Reported in: 1980CriLJ271
Vyas Dev Misra, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the decision of the learned single Judge holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court and directing him to be detained in civil prison for a period of six months.2. The detailed facts are given in the decision of the learned single Judge and we do not intend to repeat all the details. The material facts, briefly stated, are these.The Central Bank of India (the Bank) had advanced moneys to M/s. Current Transport and Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Current Transport Service (the Company), on the hypothecation of five buses. When the Bank failed to recover the loan it filed a suit on May 26, 1972 against the Company as well as all its directors. Kuldip Singh appellant is one of the directors. The Bank also moved an application on the same day under Order 38 Rule 5 (I. A. No. 991 of 1972) praying for the attachment of the buses in question. An ex parte order was passed by a learned single J...
Lakhbir Chand Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi53
ORDER1. This writ petition and C . W. Petition No. 371 of 1972 are under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution of India and pray for the issue of a writ, order or direction, declaring that the award No. 22/1970-71 made on 29th of July, 1970. by the Land Acquisition Collector is illegal and void, in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners and consequently quashing the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land and building of the petitioners. 2. One Mehta Krishan Lal was the owner in possession of an open plot of land bearing No. A-8 measuring 200 sq. yards forming part of killa No. 12 Rectangle 50 situated in village Khureji Khas, Delhi, known as Janta Park. Lakhbir Chand petitioner purchased half portion of the above-said plot Le. 100 sq. yards, by means of a sale-deed dated Aug., 10, 1955 (copy Annexure A in C. W. Petn. No. 372 of 1972). Smt. Saraswati Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Ram Prakash, purchased the other half portion of the said plot...
National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Punjab TIn Printing ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi58; ILR1979Delhi381; 1979RLR289
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of suit. Three questions arise in this case : Whether a partner of a firm can enter into an agreement to submit disputes to arbitration on behalf of the firm without any authority from other partners Whether in an -application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it is necessary to mention the alleged disputes which the defendant was ready and willing to submit to arbitration at the lime when the proceedings commenced Whether a partner of the firms deemed to have taken steps in the proceedings when a request is made on behalf of the firm seeking time to file written statement ?(2) The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1.05,4()2.57 p. on the allegations that defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm consisting of its partners defendants 2 to 9, that defendant No, I entered into a hire-purchase agreement dated 17th May, 1965 signed by defendant No. 5 only on behalf of the firm ...
Jairamgurnami Vs. Shantagurnani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT8
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The parties have a son Babloo, who was born on April 26, 1974, and is in the custody of his mother, respondent Mrs. Shanta. The law is that the father is the natural guardian of his legitimate minor son and the mother ordinarily has the custody of a child who has not completed the age of five years. And yet the father Jairam Gurnani filed an application on June 7, 1975, for his appointment as a guardian of the child and for obtaining its custody from the mother. Respondent Mrs. Shanta moved an application under Order 32 Rules 3 read with Rule 15 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that the petitioner was suffering from 'paranoia' and was of unsound mind and thereforee could not institute the application without the appointment of a next friend. The application was in fact under Rule 2 and not under Rule 3 which provides for such an application by a plaintiff or a petitioner against a defendant or a respon- dent. The petitioner contested the applicatio...
Rafiq Ahmed and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1978
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT188
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Rafiq Ahmed and Musharraf Ali were convicted under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Parkash Chand and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code, for stabbing Suresh Kumar Public Witness . and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a file of Rs. 200.00 . Each of them was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the substantive sentence awarded to them were directed to run concurrently. They now appeal against their convictions and sentences. (2) The prosecution case is this. Sardari Lal, Suresh Kumar, Parkash Chand deceased and another Parkash Chand, members of the territorial army, were in Delhi in connection with the railway strike. They were staying in their barracks near Red Fort. On April 7, 1974 at about 7 P.M they were coming back to their barracks from Chandni Chowk. When they reached the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »