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.
Shanti Devi Vs. Pushpawati Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1979
Reported in: 1979RLR572
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 12th March, 1979 passed by Shri V.K. Jain, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi allowing the application of Smt. Pushpa Wati Chadha (Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein) under Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Smt. Shanti Devi Defendant No. 1 petitioner herein) as guardian-ad- litem of minor defendant Miss Veena Kumiri. (2) The plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the defendants in respect of shop No. 9941, Nawab Ganj. Library Road, Delhi. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. On 6th November, 1978 counsel for defendants 1 to 7 put in appearance and filed the written statement. No appearance was put in on behalf of Miss Veena Kumari (Minor), defendant No. 8 in the suit. The learned counsel for defendants 1 to 7 submitted on that date that defendant No, 1 does not want to be appointed as guardian of defendant No. 8. Defendant...
J.C. Verma Vs. C.B.i. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1474; ILR1979Delhi58
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Whether clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is ultra virus of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India Is the question raised in this writ petition.(2) Shorn of all unnecessary details the facts in brief are that the petitioner is a public servant. He started his career as clerk some where in 1940. (3) After a break of one year from June 15, 1948 to July 15, 1949 he rejoined Government service as a Statistician with the Ministry of Rehabilitation. After working in various capacities in different departments of the Government of India, he was working as Deputy Commissioner in the Ministry of Agriculture when a case under section 5(1)(e) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered against him. After completing the investigation a chargesheet was submitted on July 21, 1977 in the court of Special Judge. It is alleged that the petitioner has been found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 4,8...
Sarjeet Singh Bhangul Vs. Bar and Council of Delhi ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi263; 1979RLR324
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The decision of this writ petition turns on the construction of Section 3(4) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which is as follows : 'ANadvocate shall be disqualified from voting at an election under sub-section (2) or for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a State Bar Council, unless he possesses such qualifications or satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf by the Bar Council of India, and subject to any such rules that may be made, an electoral roll shall be prepared and revised from time to time by each State Bar Council.' (2) The exclusive power to make rules as to what qualifications must be possessed and what conditions must be satisfied by an advocate not to become disqualified from voting at an election of members of State Bar Council given to the Bar Council of India is re-emphasised by Section 49(1)(a) of the Act which is as follows : '49(1)The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, a...
Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Jiwan Kishore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1979
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi548
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The plaintiff was working as a senior clerk in the Delhi Transport Corporation when he was informed by an order dated January 29, 1975 that he shall be retired with effect from June 30, 1975 having by then attained the age of 58 years. He filed the present suit on June 28, 1975 for declaration that his date of birth was June 19, 1927 and not June 19, 1917 and that he will superannuate in 1985, for quashing of the said order and for restraining the defendant Corporation from retiring him before June 30, 1985. The suit was decreed by the court of the first instance and the court of the first appeal. Hence, this second appeal by the Corporation. (2) The facts appear to be that the plaintiff respondent joined the Gwalior Northern India Transport Company in June 1947 as a conductor. His services were first transferred to the Delhi Transport Service a Central Government Department in terms of an agreement dated April 23, 1948 between the said transport company and the Centra...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Lila Guha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi12
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (1) Can the damages or penalty payable by the Lesser to the head-landlord for using the residential premises for non-residential purposes contrary to the head-lease be regarded as a part of the rent merely because the lessee agrees to reimburse the Lesser by paying these misuse charges to him along with the rent This is the question of first impression which arises in this writ petition.(2) The High Commission for Canada in India is the tenant of No. 13, Golf Links, New Delhi, of which the respondents are the landlords. 'The premises were leased for the following monthly consideration from 1-4-1967 to 31-1-1970 : - (1) Rs. 5,000.00 for the entire premises ; (2) House tax on the premises to be paid by the lessee; and (3) the lessee to pay also all the additional charges, ground rent, damages, penalty or other impositions levied by the land & Development Office of the Government of India or other appropriate authority for the breach of the conditions of the head-leas...
Mahesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi667
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (1) THIS. appeal brings out sharply the difference between two different theories governing the termination of the services of a civil servant, namely, (a) termination simplicities because the service is held during the pleasure of the President or the Governor under Article 310, and (b) termination by way of a punishment after compliance with the rules of natural justice embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution. (2) The services of the appellant was terminated by way of premature compulsory retirement by the impugned order of 10th May, 1978 under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, which is as follows : 'THECentral Government may, in consultation with the State Government concerned and after giving the member of the service at least three months' previous notice in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, require that member to retire in public interest, from service on the date on which s...
Chittar Mal Vs. Shanti Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1979
Reported in: 1979RLR542
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This revision petition has arisen from the order dated 5th February, 1979 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi declining an application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to file certain additional documents. (2) Smt. Shanti Aggarwal (respondentlandlady) filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) and Chapter lll-A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against Shri Chittar Mal (petitioner-tenant). The summons under the Act were issued to the tenant who filed an application under Section 25(B)(iv) of the said Act for leave to defend. After consideration of the material on the record, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi came to the conclusion that the affidavits of the tenant have disclosed the facts, which if proved will disentitle the landlady from claiming eviction of the tenant under Clause (b). The tenant filed the written statement. The landlady filed the replication and the case was fixed for evidence of the landlady...
Kashi Ram JaIn Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1979
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi524
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent Delhi Developmnt Authority for the execution of the work of Development of land in Zone E-8 to E-12 (Phase 1) as per agreement No. 14/EE/DDV/72-73. Clause 25 of the Agreement is as follows : '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 or 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, instruction, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the thereof same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Vice Chairman, Delh...
Raj Krishan Chopra Vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-1979
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi308
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This is an unfortunate case in which the plaintiff, a Civil Engineer, who came to this Court in a grievance with regard to promotion, has in the process lost his job and now seeks relief either by way of specific enforcement of the contract of service or for damages on account of wrongful termination and raises some interesting facets of the problem of contractual service in a Government company, the effect of bilateral transfer of service from one employer to another, the law relating to specific enforcement of the contract of service and damages for wrongful termination(2) Raj Krishan Chopra, plaintiff, joined the National Mineral 'Development Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking, for short, N.M.D.C., first defendant, as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in November. 1960, pursuant to a contract of service. On completion of an year's period of probation satisfactorily, he was confirmed. In 1967. he was posted as officiating Executive Engineer (Civil) ...
Ashok Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi102
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgmentof Mr. P. K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, convicting the appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. As the appellant was not represented by any counsel of his choice, Mr. D. C. Mathur was appointed amices Curiae.(2) We must record our thanks for the assistance given by him. The prosecution case, ib brief, is this Hari Om was one of the partners of Payal Biscuit Factory. The factory is run at premises No. 35/6-C, Lawrence Road, Delhi. Hari Om had his residence on the first- floor of the factory. The appellant was working off and on in the factory. He stopped working from August 4, 1975 onwards. August 10, 1975 was a holiday. However, some workers had been asked to work on that day. At about 10.30 A.M. Hari Om was sitting on a chair near the gate of the factory. He was wearing only pyjama. The appellant came there and claimed some dues from Hari Om but the latter t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »