Delhi Court May 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.
Print Pak Machinery Ltd. Vs. Jay Kay Papers Conveters
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi217; 1979RLR418
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) A very fundamental point regarding the procedure to be followed on the original side has been raised in this case. The plaintiff has instituted a suit under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code on the basis of a cheque given by the defendant. After summons had been served, and no application for leave to defend the suit was moved though the period prescribed had expired, counsel for the plaintiff prayed that a decree be passed forthwith. On the other hand, counsel for the defendant maintained that the stage for filing an application for leave to defend had not yet arrived, and time had not even begun to run because a 'summons for judgment:' had not so far been served on the defendant.(2) To understood the respective contentions a little background is necessary. The Civil Procedure Code was enacted in 1908. In Order 37 it provided a 'Summary Procedure' applicable to suits based 'on Negotiable Instruments'. The defendant could not 'appear or defend the suit' unless ...
American Refrigeration Co. Ltd. Vs. the All India Institute of Medical ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT66
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi the respondent invited tenders for the supply and installation of Air Conditioning Plant, air handling units, weather makers, fancoil units, pipe lines and other accessories in the main plant room, ward block, paying bed wards etc. By a letter dated 24th April, 1967, M/s American Refrigerator Co. Ltd. the petitioner offered to supply and install the air conditioning plant etc. wherein the petitioner besides giving the price of the plant and installation charges also mentioned the sales tax payable on various items of materials to be used in the plant. The entire machinery of plant and its installation is divided into seven sub-heads and the sales tax payable under various subjects was stated as under : ____________________________________________________________________________ S. No. 700-A/1978 Sub Head I : Sales Tax ____________________________________________________________________________ Installation of th...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Anil Puri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi350
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order of Mr. Mohd. Shamim, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, acquitting the respondents of the charges under section 120B read with section 168, section 168 and section 109 read with section 168, Indian Penal Code, on the ground of limitation.(2) For the purpose of this appeal the facts mentioned in the impugned order are not disputed. Respondent Anil Puri is an Assistant Executive Engineer in the C.P.W.D. Respondent Daryao Singh is a Librarian working with the C.P.W.D. Respondent Lahori Mal is the father of Anil Puri.(3) It is alleged that during March, 1971 to March, 1972 the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy to do illegal acts and so floated a firm under the name and style of M/s. International Book Traders for carrying on business of selling and purchasing books. Respondents 1 and 2 being Government servants were not entitled to carry on business as they were public servants. However, they joined respondent No. 3 in r...
Wajinder Singh Etc. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1979
Reported in: 1979RLR381
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This is an application u/s. 438 Criminal Procedure Code . for anticipatory bail. In view of Balchand Jain v. State Air 1977 Sc 366, I granted interim bail to the petitioner and issued notice to the PP. in order that a wrong order of anticipatory bail may not be obtained by the petitioner by placing incorrect or misleading facts or suppessing material facts. The investigation made so far discloses that the petitioners are partners of M/s Capital Steel Industries, 64, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi, which carries on the business of manufacture of steel furniture. In order that they may be able to get raw material, the Director of Industries assessed the capacity at 150 Metric Tons per year in the year 1975. In the year 1978, they applied to the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation for enhanced quota of steel on the basis of a photostat copy of a capacity certificate enhancing the capacity to 1350 M.T. They lifted about 607.9 M.T. valued at about Rs. twenty four la...
Jagat Taran Berry Vs. Sardar Sant Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi7; 16(1979)DLT124; 1979RLR547
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) This second appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 raises an intricate question as to the validity of a notice to quit. An order for recovery of possession has been made by the Additional Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The notice to quit was of 15 days. The tenant contends that as the lease was for 'manufacturing purposes' the notice ought to have been of six months. There was no written lease deed executed by the parties; at least, none has been brought on record.(2) The only other fact that need be mentioned is that for the few months that rent was paid, the payments were monthly. This is proved by the counterfoil of a receipt signed by the tenant. It shows that Rs. 400 was paid as rent for November, 1966. Admittedly, nothing was paid thereafter. The order for recovery of possession was sought and obtained on the ground that arrears of rent had not been paid since 1st December, 1966. In the course of the proceedings before the...
Ganesh Flour Mills Vs. Ramesh Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT87
Rajinder Sachar, J.(1) These are two appeals which would be disposed of by the same order as they arise out of a common order of Rent Control Tribunal. The appellant Company is a tenant of two partitions on the first floor of suit property. The respondent brought two applications for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide need. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition. In appeal the points urged before the Rent Control Tribunal was about the bonafide need and on the ground that the respondent was not the owner of the property in dispute. The Tribunal found that a partition has taken place in the family, with the result that the property in dispute had fallen to the share of the respondent. He also found that the respondent who was a practicing advocate had only three rooms available to him, which, keeping in view bids position and his family were not sufficient for his need. He, thereforee, affirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals of the tenants...
Union of India and ors. Vs. S.S. Prasad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi139b; 1979LabIC1157; (1980)IILLJ86Del
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (1) When are remarks in confidential reports about officers regarded as adverse to them? What is the effect of non-communication to the officers of these adverse remarks Does such non-communication vitiate the material consisting of the adverse remarks which could be taken into consideration by the Government for forming the opinion whether the compulsory premature retirement of an officer would be 'in public interest' within the meaning of Fundamental Rule 56(j) Whether the material on which disciplinary inquiry is to be held against an officer can be taken into account in passing an order of compulsory premature retirement against him? These are the main questions which arise in this appeal. (2) Shri S.S. Prasad (respondent No. 1) born on 2-8-1921. while holding the post of Deputy Director General of Mines Safety and Technical Advisor in the Minstry of Labour, was considered fit to be retained in service beyond the age of 55 in February 1976 by the Ministry of La...
Indian Aluminum Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1979
Reported in: 1993(12)ELT349(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises the question of scope and true interpretation of Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated June 16, 1976 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 granting excise duty relief in respect of selected commodities to the extent of 25 per cent of duty payable on goods produced in excess of production in a selected base year.2. Indian Aluminum Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) petitioner No. 1 is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a share holder of the Company and is a citizen of India. The Company carries on the business, inter alia, of manufacturing and selling Aluminum and its allied products. For the purpose of the said business the company owns three Aluminum smelting plants at Hirakund in the State of Orissa, at Alupuram in the State of Kerala and at Belgaum in the State ...
Union of India and anr. Vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi223
ORDER1. The suit under consideration has been instituted for the recovery of Rs.2,70,82,043.36. The basis of the suit is the Cement Control Order, 1967, referred to hereinafter as the 'Order' which was issued under the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Under this 'Order' the price of cement has been fixed on a uniform pattern throughout India. Under Clause 9 of the 'Order' every producer has to pay a certain amount to the Controller when the price realised by the producer exceeds the aggregate of the ex-factory price calculated under the Order, together with the selling agency commission, the excise duty and packing charges. The excess amount is to be kept by the Cement Controller in a Cement Regulation Account and spent for equalizing the expenditure of various producers and other parties as fully specified in the said 'Order'.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant used to send monthly statements showing the quantity of cements sold and ...
Chaman Lal Kapur and ors. Vs. Kundan Lal Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi240
ORDER1. The present suit involves a question regarding the nature of the estate held by Shrimati Sham Piari who died in Delhi on 23rd February, 1969, The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The said Shrimati Sham Piari was the widow of Seth Boota Mal Kapur; Seth Boota Mal had two wives from each of whom he had a son (We are not concerned with the daughters). The son from the first wife as well as the first wife have died before the partition of the country. There were three grandsons through the elder son who are the plaintiffs in the present suit. The son from the second wife is the defendant. The question before the Court is whether the property left by Shrimati Sham Piari in Delhi was held by her under a life estate and whether the property is to be divided amongst the plaintiffs who get a half share and the defendant who gets the other half share, or whether, the property is to go to the defendant alone. The answer to this question depends on what was the nature of the estat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »