Delhi Court January 1979 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.
D.A. Shahni Vs. H.D. Mehra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1979
Reported in: 1979RLR204
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is a tenant's second appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and Controller by which they refused to set aside the ex parte eviction order passed against the appellant. (2) An eviction application was filed by the respondent-landlord on 8.6.73. Eviction was sought on various grounds mentioned in the eviction application. 21,1075 was the date fixed for the parties, evidence but the court remained busy in some other case . and the same could not be thereforee taken up, and the eviction application was adjourned to 19.1 76. On that day, landlord was present but there was no aSppearance on behalf of the tenant. The Rent Controller recorded the evidence produced by the landlord and passed an ex parte eviction order on 20.1.76. (3) On 22.'1.76 January, 1976, an application was filed by the appellant tenant praying that by mistake the date in the diary of the counsel had been noted as 21st and that was the reason why neither the tenant nor his counsel...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Darshan Kxjmar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ86; ILR1979Delhi416
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Whether a person selling adulterated milk can be convicted and punished for selling the same without a license is the common question which has arisen in criminal appeals Nos. 287, 288 and 299 of 1977 which are being disposed of by this judgment.(2) We may note the facts of one case only since the facts of other cases are also similar. Darshan Kumar was found carrying milk in a can for sale. A Food Inspector duly took a sample of this milk for analysis. It was found to be adulterated. Delhi Municipal Corporation filed a complaint alleging that Darshan Kumar was selling adulterated milk and that he was selling the same without any license. The trial court convicted and sentenced Darshan Kumar for both the offences. On appeal Mr. P. K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, following a Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1975 2 F.A.C. 404 Vasudeo Bhat, Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Ujjain v. Ganpat and another, held that Darshan Kumar co...
Dhirendra Brahmachari Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi65
Prakash Narain, J.(1) The primary question which arises for determination is whether the rule regarding testimonial compulsion as contained in clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India is attracted on the facts of this case. 'This guarantee is enshrined in the following words : 'NOperson accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.'the petitioner invoked the above provision of the Constitution by declining to take oath and give testimony when called upon to do so before a Commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Commission being ^ of the view that the said action of the petitioner constituted an offence under Sections 178 and 179 of the Indian Penal Code directed the lodging of a complaint against the petitioner. The complaint was lodge and the petitioner prosecuted. After seine proceedings had taken place in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the A petitioner has appro...
Bewiet Coleman and Co. Vs. Premchand Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1979
Reported in: 1979RLR148
M.L. Jain, J.(1) [FATHER of respondent 1 to 4 leased out tenanted premises to Bharat Insurance Co. in 1947. Latter allotted it to its sister concern, the appellant. On expiry of lease, appellant became a direct tenant on 1.2.56. Landlord on 30.4.66, terminated tenancy and on 30.7.69, sued for eviction on the ground of personal requirement and sub-letting. Controller orderd eviction on the ground of sub-letting. Tribunal upheld the order and appellant filed S.A.O.] After giving above facts judgment, pare 3 onwards is : (2) As regards the validity of the notice of termination of tenancy it was urged that the notice did not fulfill the requirements of sec. 106, T.P.A. and thereforee, there being no valid determination of the tenancy, no eviction petition could be filed. Now, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was enforced with effect from 9.2.59 and the T.P.A, 1882 was evtended to the Union Territory of Delhi on 1.12.62 while the lease in question had come into existence as early as 1.2.56...
Surinder Nath Vs. Hardit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-1979
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT296
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) This is a second appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree by the courts below by which the suit of the plaintiff for possession has been decreed and decree for Rs. l,260.00 being amount for 3 years prior to the suit at the rate of Rs. 35 per month has also been passed in favor. (2) The property in dispute is plot No. 7, Block No. 3 Original Road, Paharganj, New Delhi. There is no dispute-about 2/3rd portion of the area which is admittedly said to be belonging to the plaintiff. The dispute is limited to l/3rd portion of the said plot. In 1940, one Chandu purchased leasehold rights of the plot in dispute, from Delhi Improvement Trust. Chandu leased it out it one Sohan Lal. In 1947, Chandu filed a suit against Sohan Lal and obtained an expart decree for possession. When he, however, sought to execute the decree, Shiv Lal, the father of appellants I and 3 and husband of appellant no. 2 resisted the execution, on the ground that he was in possession in ...
Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Centrala Handlu Zaranizznego, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi167
1. This petition, under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act. was filed by Messrs Metal Forgings Private Limited, New Delhi, against Messrs Centralia Handlu Zaranizznego, Poland. It was alleged by the petitioner that the parties entered into five contracts for supply of forgings to the respondent worth Rs. 9,94,750; Rs. 25,75,000; Rs. 27,60,009; Rs. 5,72,800 and Rs. 13,27,910 respectively. It was provided by the five separate agreements that the respondent would furnish to the petitioner drawings of the components and the petitioner would thereon submit samples for the approval of the other party and on obtaining the said approval the goods in question would be fabricated. Ten per cent of the price of the goods, amounting to Rs. 8,23,044, was paid to the petitioner in advance and letters of credit were opened in its favor in respect of four contracts. According to the petitioner there was delay on the part of the respondent in sending the drawings, approving the samples, etc. and in consequenc...
Surrinder Kumar Goyal Vs. B.N. Javeri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi579
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) In this appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, the appellant has moved an application seeking leave to produce further evidence. The application is made 'under Order 41 rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure' and prays for the case to be remitted to the Additional Rent Controller for recording additional evidence. However, in the course of the argument, counsel for the appellant merely wanted that some developments which have occurred after the matter was tried at first instance be taken into consideration whilst deciding the appeal. There is no doubt that this will entail taking notice of facts which have neither been admitted nor proved on record. thereforee, counsel for the respondent contended that, since this was a second appeal which could be entertained only on 'some substantial question of law', the application could not be allowed even in the modified form in which it was argued. So, the question which I have to d...
Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh and Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi220
ORDER1. This is a petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act requiring the respondent to file the agreement and to refer the disputes to an arbitrator. The respondent accepted the tender of the petitioner for the construction of 232 quarters at Antibiotics Plant Township, Virbhadra, Rishikesh (Uttar Pradesh) and formal contract was executed on 22nd May, 1972, which contains the following arbitration clause:-'Decision of the 'Project Authorities to be final: Clause 25:- Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to e...
R.B. Basakha Singh and Sons Vs. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1979
Reported in: 1979RLR239
Justice Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is a petition u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act requiring the respondent to file the agreement and to refer the disputes to an arbitrator. The respondent accepted the tender of the petitioner for the construction of 232 quarters at Antibiotics Plant Township, Rishikesh (U.P.). and formal contract was executed on 22nd May, 1972, which contains the following arbitration clause ;-- 'It is also a term of this contract that no person other than a person appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director, as aforesaid, shall act as Arbitrator, and, and, if for any reason, that is not possible, the matter is not to be referred to arbitration at all all.' (2) It is admitted by the parties that on 7.8.75, a supplementary deed was executed between them, whereby it was agreed to substitute the words 'Managing Director' in the original agreement, (3) The petitioner alleges that the work under the contract was completed, that it submitted several claims for Rs. 1,35,763.81...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›