Delhi Court March 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.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Hurmohinder Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ493; 1981RLR411
Vyas Dev Misra, J. (1) M/S. Manak Chand Jai Ram Singh, a partnership fimr, are wholesale foodgrain merchants. They have installed a grinding machine at their shop in Rui Mandi, Saddar Bazar, Delhi. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are the partners. On July 19, 1973 Food Inspectors Kanwal Krishan, P.S. Gupta, G.P. Baweja and S.C. Sharma of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, went to the respondents' shop. From there Kanwal Krishan, Food Inspector, duly purchased a sample of Dal-chana for analysis. Shortly thereafter Food Inspector P.S. Gupta purchased two samples of Dal-chana for analysis. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst who declared all the samples adulterated because of the presence of Kesri Dal. The sample lifted by Kanwal Krishan had Kesri Dal to the extent of 13.53%. The samples lifted by Food Inspector P.S. Gupta had Kesri Dal to the extent of 10.09 per cent and 7.02 per cent.(2) Two complaints under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were fil...
D.L.F. United Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi203
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These are two appeals. One is by the owner, D.L.F. United Ltd. (R.F.A. 169 of 1975). The other is the cross-appeal of the taker of the land, the Union of India (R.F.A. 170 of 1975). As the conclusion of the hearing I pronounced the judg- ment. I dismissed both the appeals with no order as to costs. Now I give my reasons. (2) These appeals arise out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894 (the Act). Certain lands of the appellant D.L.F. United Limited in R.F.A. 169 of 1975 were acquired by the Government for a public purpose. Notification under s. 4 of the Act was issued on October 24, 1961. The declaration under s. 6 of the Act was made on October 26, 1968. A large area of 1680 bighas 12 bids was in a trans-Jamuna colony known as Dilshad Garden was thus sought to be taken. In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award (Award No. 8 of 1969)- The collector awarded compensation for 1648 bighas 3 bids was leaving out the remaining ...
Sat Pal and Co. and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi712
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) Has the Parliament power under Article 246(4) to authorise the levy of duty on the import of alcoholic liquor in the Union Territory of Delhi even though such liquor is not manufactured in Delhi and the duty would not, thereforee, be a countervailing duty within the meaning of Entry 51 of List Ii of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This question arises for decision in the following circumstances: (2) Section 31 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (the Act) as applied to Delhi before its amendment by the impugned ordinance authorises the imposition of an excise duty or countervailing duty on any excisable article imported into Delhi in accordance with the provisions of section 16 or is manufactured in Delhi under license granted under section 20 or manufactured in any distillery established under section 21. The petitioners were granted license in Form 1 10 for 1978-79 under section 35 for the sale of country liquor after the petitioners were declared to be t...
Gulab Raj Sharma Vs. Pushpa Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi220
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal by the husband against the dismissal of the petition brought by him for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be called the Act).(2) The parties were married on 17-5-1970. They have no child. The appellant husband claims that they only lived for a couple of days i.e. up to 20-5-1970 when the respondent wife is said to have been taken to her parent's home by her brother. It is claimed that subsequently efforts were made to bring her back but she refused. Notices were said to have been sent by her in 1973. The appellant claims that he had been beaten by the relations of the respondent and even had reported to the police. e allegations were denied by the wife. Delay of six years was pleaded as a preliminary bar. 'The wife maintains that they lived together first in Dharampura house and then shifted to Vakilpura along with the parents of the husband from 1972 onward. She claimed that she had been 1iying in the game house...
Ramesh Chand Gupta Vs. Sushma Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT83
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1970 passed by the Court of Shri O.P. Singhla, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the application for judicial separation under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By an order of the Court, the petition has been allowed to be amended as a petition for divorce under Section 13 as a result of Section 39 of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 which came into force on 27th May, 1976. The appeal will now consider whether the appellant is entitled to the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28th July, 1963 at Delhi. A son was born out of the lawful wedlock on 28th July, 1964. The cause of action in the petition is that the respondent has withdrawn without any reasonable cause or excuse from the society of the appellant w...
State Bank of India, Delhi Vs. O.P. Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi201
ORDER1. This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 52,237.51 paise. The plaintiff granted following cash credit facilities to defendant No. 1:-(a) Cash Credit (Medium Term Loan for Working Capital) Rs. 28,000/- (b) Cash Credit (Medium Term Loan for Machinery) Rs. 9,200/- (c) Cash Credit (Special Hypothecation) Rs. 10,000/-2. On 9 the May, 1972, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 delivered to and deposited with the plaintiff the title deeds in respect of the House Property bearing No.87, Dooli Piao, mathura with intent to create a mortgage in favor of the plaintiff as collateral security for advances made or to be made. Again on 26th July, 1973 defendants Nos, 1,2,4 and 6further delivered to and deposited with the plaintiff title deeds in respect of the building bearing Municipal Seriall No.275m Dooli Piao Mathura, measuring 308 square yards with intent to creates a mortgage in favor of the plaintiff as Collateral Security thereof for advances made or to be made. The defendant No.1 executed the agreeme...
Union of India Vs. Bhagwana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-1979
Reported in: 15(1979)DLT352
Avadh Behari, J. (1) The appeal R.F.A. No. 46 of 1978 was filed by the Union of India on May 23, 1977. The sole respondent to the appeal was admitted on January 31, 1978. (2) On December 12, 1978, service of the appeal was effected. The process server went to the respondent's place on December 12, 1978. His grandson Jurnail Singh was present. He accepted a copy of the notice and the grounds of appeal. The process server took evidence of one witness at the time of service and submitted his report regarding the service of he respondent to the court on December 14, 1978 with his usual affidavit in support thereof. (3) The respondent did not engage any counsel No. 1 put in appearance on his behalf. The office accordingly issued a notice on February 7, 1979 for February 13, 1979, the actual date fixed for hearing before the court. The notice said. 'TAKE notice that the case noted above will be fixed for hearing before this court on 13-2-79 (Actual). You may appear before the court on the sa...
Atam Parkash Vs. Comptr. and Audj. Gen. of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT276
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules. (2) The petitioner joined Government service in May, 1950, and was compulsorily retired from service on September 15, 1964, after 14 years of service, as a punitive measure in an apparently ex parte proceedings, because the notice sent to the petitioner was returned with the remark that the petitioner had refused to receive it, the contention of the petitioner being that, while the pioceedings were going on, the petitioner was under treatment in the medical institute at Rohtak and had submitted a medical certificate. The Department apparently found some substance in the plea of the petitioner that he had been under medical treatment and, thereforee, even while declining to review the order, decided to re-employ the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk on a temporary basis. This is how the petitioner was re-employe...
Suchet Singh Vs. Chander Bal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-1979
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT104; 1980RLR612
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) This is a petition for revision against the order of the Rent Controller permitting amendment of the petition for eviction filed against the petitioner tenant. (2) The landlord filed an application on 1.3.1976 for eviction under 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It appears the proceedings did not reach the finality and thereforee the matter was fixed, for evidence of the respondent-landlord obviously in view of the subsequent developments and changes so far as the orders-issued under Section 14A, thought of amending the petition and applied to the Rent Controller for so doing. The petitioner wanted to include ground (e) under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. This has been allowed and the tenant has come up to this court by way of revision. (3) Much arguments were raised by both the counsel as to the desirability or the premissibility of the amendment. On behalf of the petitioner it was objected that the amendment could not be allowed under la...
C.N. Sharma and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi525
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The question raised by this writ petition is whether the range and quantum of non-profit sharing bonus paid by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Corporation) (respondent No.1) to its class I officers (some of whom are the petitioners) can be varied or reduced without contravening Articles 14, 19 and/or 31 of the Constitution. (2) The non-profit sharing bonus is not governed by the payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Further section 32 of the Payment of Bonus Act excludes the employees of the Corporation from the applicability of that Act. The non-profit sharing bonus is, thereforee, in the nature of an addition to wages paid by the Corporation to its employees and is, thereforee, of the same nature as the rest of the wages are. The statutory power to settle the terms and conditions of service of its employees by making regulations is conferred on the Corporation by section 49(1) and section 49(2) (b) and (bb) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (the Act)....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›