Delhi Court February 1979 Judgments
In Re: Tanwar Finance P. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Kanwar Ram Chander ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas827(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The present petition has been brought under Sections 446, 518, 523 and 526 of the Companies Act, 1956, and is concerned with an order passed in Execution Case No. 197/72 in Civil Suit No, 761/67, which is entitled Shri K. Ram Chander v. Tanwar Finance. The application also seeks a direction of this court regarding the order dated 23rd March, 1973, passed by Shri S.P. Sabharwal, Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, in the case, The matter is quite an intricate one and has been dealt with by myself on several occasions. There were many attempts to compromise this case and in fact a compromise was reached which was about to be acted upon when due to the intervention of some other parties who got a declaratory decree against the auction-purchaser the compromise was frustrated. Hence, the matter has to be decided on the merits.2. M/s. Tanwar Finance is a company in voluntary liquidation. By an order of this court passed several years ago, this winding up became subject to the sup...
Tag this Judgment!Shanta Sabharwal Vs. Sushila Sabharwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi153; 1979RLR223
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. After a five-Judge Bench in University of Delhi v. Hafiz Mohd. Said, : AIR1972Delhi102 to which one of us (Deshpande, J. as he then was) was a party, held that the maintainability of an appeal against an order of a learned single Judge exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction in this Court is governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and not by those of Letters Patent, the question is concluded for this Court. Nevertheless, attempts are being made from time to time to persuade different Benches to take a different view, and if necessary, to refer the question to a larger Beach of seven Judges. It would, thereforee, be necessary to consider the expediency of reference also in deciding upon the maintainability of this appeal.2. In Suit No. 117 of 1974 filed by Mrs. Sushila Sabharwal against Mrs. Shanta Sabharwal and others, for the partition and separate possession of the house in which both the parties proceeded on the footing of an absence ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip Rastogi and anr. Vs. Vishva Nath Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi202
T.P.S. Chawla, J. 1. A single judge, sitting on the original side, has found Kuldip Rastogi and the firm Ram Swarup Rastogi & Sons, of which he is one of the partners of contempt of court. Kuldip Rastogi has been ordered to be detained in a civil on son for three months, and the firm has been fined Rs. 2,000/-. Both of them have appealed. At the same time, Vishwanath Khanna who initiated the proceedings for contempt, has also filed an appeal. He maintain that the other partners of the firm are equally guilty of contempt of art, and prays that all of them., including Kuldip Rastogi, be detained in the civil prison for six months, the maximum period permissible in law. These two appeals have been heard together as they have arisen out of the same order.2. The points canvassed necessitate a somewhat detailed narration of the facts. Nevertheless, I will leave out all that I consider to be irrelevant. That is a task rendered unduly difficult by the many volumes of court record already spawn...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Prakash Vs. Choudhry Plastic Works and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi939
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This application for taking proceedings for allegedly committing contempt of this court was moved by one Raj Prakash against M/s. Choudbry Plastic Works, Gali Bama, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and Mangat Ram Choudhry who is the proprietor of M/s. Choudhry Plastic Works, by invoking Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, .1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act. We issued notice of the application to the two parties mentioned above. A reply supported by an affidavit was filed by Mangat Ram Choudhry on his behalf and on behalf of M/s. Choudhry Plastic Works submitting that no contempt of court had been committed, as alleged, and setting out the circumstances in which the alleged default was committed. An unqualified apology was also tendered. Raj Prakash filed a rejoinder to this reply reiterating that Mangat Ram Choudhry had dommitted contempt of court and asserting that the affidavit filed was false. It was further contended that apology with a justification could no...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Ramkishan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: 1980RLR173
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) These are 5 appeals from the order of Addl. Distt. Judge. In all question relates to Compensation payable for lands in village Nangal Dewat, 2 appeals are by owners and 3 are by Union of India. This judgment will govern them all. (2) Government acquired land measuring 5889 bighas 11 bids was for a public purpose connected with development of Palam Airport. Notification u/s of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 3.12.71, After usual proceeding Collector made his award No. 23/73-74 on 20.7.73. He classified entire acquired land in 4 blocks. For each block, he made an offer of different Sum : Block 'A' Rs. 6,600.00, Block 'B' Rs. 6,000.00, Block 'C' Rs. 5,500.00 and Block 'D' Rs. 1,800.00 per bigha. Basis of his classification was land in block 'A' abutted on main Delhi Gurgaon Road and a road to village abadi in Nangal Dewat. Block 'B' comprised of land on road from village abadi to village Bijwasan. Block 'D' consisted of Bhatta lands. Remaining lands he group...
Tag this Judgment!Gomti Devi Vs. Om Parkash and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT291; 1979RLR217
H.L. Anand, J.(1) Whether the claim of respondent No. 2 to protection under the proviso to S. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, is justified or not, is the only question that this Second Appeal by the landlady raises. (2) Hari Kishan responent No. 2, for short, the objector, was a tenant in a portion of the property, of which the premises in dispute forms, part, in 1964, under one Ram Kishan, the owner of that portion. The objector, however, vacated that portion and later the same year came to occupy the premises in dispute, either as a tenant under the appellants, Gomti Devi, as alleged by the objector, or was inducted into it by one 0m Parkash, respondent No. 1, the so- called tenant, as alleged by the Landlady. In 1975, the landlady filed a petition against 0m Parkash, respondent No. 1, for his eviction from the premises in dispute on the allegation that he had sublet the premises to the objector in 1968 and the objector has been inoccupation thereof since then. The objector wa...
Tag this Judgment!The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Ulfat Rai Kailash Chand ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT7A; [1981]19ITR7(Delhi)
M.S. Joshi, J.(1) The present petition was made by the Delhi Cloth &General; Mills Co. Ltd. against M/s. Ulfat Rai Kailash Chand, a Firm ofCloth Merchants, and its proprietors Kailash Chand and Singari Devi, sonand widow of Ulfat Rai, respectively, under Section 20 of the ArbitrationAct, for filing the arbitration agreement between the parties in Court and forreference of the dispute between them to arbitration in accordance with theRules ramed by the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association.(2) According to the petitioner, it is a Company incorporated underthe Indian Companies Act, 1882 and G. S. Gargya is its principal officer andgeneral attorney having authority to sign, verify and institute suits on behalfo f the Company. The petitioner had owned at the relevant time a shopknown as D, C. M. City Shop at Lal Katra, Nai Sarak, Delhi, and M/s.Ulfat Rai Kailash Chand had been purchasing goods from it. On 26.11.1971they owed a. sum. of Rs. 48,154.72 to the said shop as unpaid price of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chander Vs. Saroj Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT286
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) Respondent wife obtained a decree for restitution ofconJugal rights on 5.6. 1973. The parties not having resumed cohabitation for a period of over two years after the passing of a decree of restitution ofconJugal rights the husband moved an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by divorce. The trial court accepted the position that there has been no resumption of cohabitation during the said period. It however took the view that as the husband against whom a decree of conJugal rights has been passed took no steps to comply with the decree, he was disentitled to relief, and for this the court relied on Section 23 which provides that in any proceedings under the Act if the court is satisfied that any of the grounds for granting relief exists and that the petitioner is not taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability it shall decree such relief. The trial court apparently proceeded as if the position in law was ...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Advani Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi165
1. This suit is in the form of a petition under S. 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. An award was filed along with this petition. The facts of the case are set out in the application. Previously there was an award dated 30th Oct. 1971, which was considered by this Court in Suit No. 446/71. Objections to that award were filed by the present petitioner. They were decided by B. C. Misra J. as per judgment dated 14th Dec. 1975. The award was upheld on all ponts except on issue No. 2. Acting under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the award was remitted back by the Court for a decision on Issue No. 2. This issue was regarding some additional amount to be paid to the contractor on account of evaluation. The facts are set out in detail in the aforementioned judgment delivered by B. C. Misra, J. which I have before me. It was held by the arbitrator in the first award that the additional amount was not payable because the additional amount had been promised to the contractor without a...
Tag this Judgment!Khem Chand Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT294
F.S. Gill, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Shri Hans Raj, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 11.7.1966. (2) The land in dispute comprising Khasra Nos. 285, 290, 295, 306, 397, 400 and 762/661 is situated in Shahpur- Jat Estate. The shares of KhemChand appellant in the said fields have been described in Section 19 statement. These fields formed a part of the acquired area, which was required for Planned Development of Delhi. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 13.11.1959. The Land Acquisition Collector issued the necessary notices to the persons interested and invited their claims. Claims were filed. After considering the various claims, the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award bearing No. 1243 and divided the whole acquired land into two blocks. For Block A he assessed the compensation at Rs. 4000.00 per Bigha, while for Block B he fixed the sane at Rs. 3000.00 per Bigha. (3) Khem Chand felt aggrieved from the said award...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »