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.
indraprastha Finance Company Vs. Diamond Pictures
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-1979
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT44
D.K. Kapoor, J. (1) At this stage of the present suit which has been instituted under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a number of interesting problems regarding the application of the amended Code vis-a-vis the existing original Side Rules have arisen. I may here say that these problems have not arisen for the first time and before dealing with the same I think it should be stated that the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules, 1967 require to be amended to take due consideration of the fact that the Civil Procedure Code has been amended in respect of summary suits. (2) The legal position regarding the Original Side Rules is not only set out in the Delhi High Court Act (26 of 1966) but is also stated in Section 122 & 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 129 makes the Original Side Rules take effect even if the rules set out in the Code of Civil Procedure are inconsistent therewith; hence the result is that the amendments made in Order 37 do not have the effect of v...
Durga Chand Kaushish and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi249
Harish Chandra, J.1. These 13 petitions are based on similar facts and involve identical, questions of law. They were heard together and will be disposed of by this judgment.2. There are a number of contentions made and relief's prayed for in these petitions but the learned counsel for the petitioners have, before us, confined their challenge to the validity of Rule 45 (xiii) of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', and condition 8-A in the conditions contained in proforma of a license given in the said Rules and the Notifications No. F. 2/45/75-Fin(G) dated 30-10-1975 and 15-11-1975, containing orders issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi under Rule 45 (xiii).2-A. The Rules were framed in the purported exercise of the power conferred on the rule-making authority by Section 16 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act').3. The impugned Rule and the Condition confer power on the . Lt.Governor of Delhi for the approval of...
Man Singh, Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT70
F.S. Gill, J.(1) There are five appellants in these three appeals Nos. 249, 259 and 333 of 1976. All of them were tried together. Two separate appeals have been filed by Man Singh and Prem, while the third one has been jointly filed by Bale, Madan lal and Amar Nath. All the appellants were convicted by Shri B. B. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 15.6.1976 and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment as stated below. 1. Under section 302/149 Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for life. 2. Under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for five years 3. Under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for six months. 4. Under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for one year. 5. Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code R.I. for one year. (2) Prem and Man Singh appellants were also convicted under section 27 read with section 25 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year each. (3) All the sentences awarded under various counts were, ho...
Vijay Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-14-1979
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT9; 1980RLR203
Prithvi Raj, J.(1) Vijay son of Karan Singh and Romesh alias Kaley son of Piarey Lal were tried by Shri V B. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, for having intentionally caused the death of one Mathra Pershad in furtherance of their common intention and under Section 324 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, for having caused simple injuries with a dagger, in furtherance of their common intention, to Pardeep. The trial court by its impugned judgment dated 26th March, 1976, found the appellants guilty of the aforesaid offences and consequently sentenced them to imprisonment for life under section 302 read with Section 34 and to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 324, Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the Code. The sentences, however, were made to run concurrently.(2) The appellants feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence have separately filed the present appeals which are being disposed o...
O.N. Vohra and Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-10-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT237
(1) This is an appeal by Pal Singh 25), son of Bachiter Singh, resident of No. 207, Shalimar Park, New Delhi, who was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with the direction that both the sentences would run concurrently. (2) Briefly, the facts are that on February 8, 1975 at about 9.30 p.m. Nand Lal (Public Witness 2), Chowkidar, happened to be sitting on a charpai along with his wife, Nandni (not examined), outside the godown of his factory, C-8/2, Industrial Area, Wazirpur, Delhi. The appellant along with his companion, Kishan Lal, came up and enquired of Nand Lal from where cigarettes and tea would be available. Nand Lal told them that it would be difficult to get cigarettes and tea and simultaneously enquired from where they had come. The appellant and his companion asked Nand Lal why cigarettes and tea would not b...
Devindar Kishore Mehra Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1979
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas699(Delhi); 16(1979)DLT150
Prakash Narain, J. (1) This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Company Judge giving certain directions under Section 454(2) and (5) of the Companies Act, 1956. In order to appreciate the points involved in the case it would be desirable to briefly set out the salient facts leading to the passing of the order under appeal. (2) M/S Sipso Agencies Private Ltd. was incorporated on October 24, 1964. The first directors or the founding directors of the Company were Devinder Kishore Mehra, the appellant, Gaj Raj Singh, respondent No. 2, Dr. (Mrs.) Pushpa Gupta, Mrs. Prem Dulari Kohli, wife of Roshan lal Kohli, respondent No. 4, Smt Nirmal Kumari respondent No. 5 and Srnt. Ved Kumari Ahuja, respondent No. 6. Om Parkash Gupta, respondent No. 3, was appointed Secretary of the company. On December 16. 1965 Roshan lal Kohli was appointed Director in place of his wife Mrs. Kohli. 0m parkash Gupta, respondent No 3, was appointed Directors-cum-Secretary in January, 1966. In December, ...
Union of India Vs. Palam Potteries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1979
Reported in: ILR1979Delhi319
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The question for determination in the present appeal is whether the order of appellant No. 3 dated January 16, 1975, deleting the packing materials, Nails, Packing cases, strips from the registration certificate of the respondent-dealer (depriving the dealer of the benefit of exemption from payment of sales-tax on the said packing materials), was lawful and proper. M/s. Palam Potteries, the writ petitioner in C. W. Petition No. 249 of 1975 challenged the deletion of the said items from the Registration Certificate as contrary to Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941 (as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi) and the rules framed there under.(2) The learned Single Judge, Rangarajan J., by his order of April 15, 1975 quashed the impugned order and directed that the matter be re-heard after giving proper opportunity to the respondent-Assessce. For answering the said question, it is necessary to decide whether under the relevant provisions of t...
Palam Potteries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi Administration an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC147(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.1. The question for determination in the present appeal is whether the order of appellant No. 3 dated 16th January, 1975, deleting the packing materials, nails, packing cases, strips, from the registration certificate of the respondent-dealer (depriving the dealer of the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax on the said packing materials) was lawful and proper. M/s. Palam Potteries, the writ petitioner in C.W. Petition No. 249 of 1975 [1976] 38 S.T.C. 62, challenged the deletion of the said items from the registration certificate as contrary to Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi), and the Rules framed there under. The learned single Judge, Rangarajan, J., by his order of 15th April 1975 [1976] 38 S.T.C. 62, quashed the impugned order and directed that the matter be reheard after giving proper opportunity to the respondent-assessed.2. For answering the said question, it is necessary to decide ...
Satyapal Vs. Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT28; 1979RLR443
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) The short question in this revision petition is whether the learned Sub Judge was right in dismissing the petitioner's suit as having abated. (2) The suit was filed by the manager of the Naraina Education Society, a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act and running a Middle School for girls at Naraina. The dispute in the suit related to a ground admeasuring 83'x68' adjoining the school on the west and connected therewith by a door. According to the petitioner, the school building and the ground formed part of a large Khasra No. 953 jointly owned by a large number of cosharers including defendants 1 to 7, different parts and parcels of which were in the exclusive possession of the different cosharers. The above ground had been in the possession of the society oversince 1955 and had been used as the playground for the school children. It was alleged that the first five defendants had in the past trespassed on the land and were again threatening t...
Vinod Kumar Malhotra Vs. S.L. Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-1979
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT98
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) This is a revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against an order passed by the Additional RentController rejecting the application of the petitioner for leave to contest the petition for eviction filed by the landlord; under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B(8) of the above Act.(2) The present petitioner is the tenant and the respondent the landlordof the premises bearing mulicipal No. E-336, Greater Kailash-I New Delhi. Thelandlord is residing in the first floor of the premises which consists of two bedrooms and a drawing/dining room. The tenant is residing in the ground floorconsisting of three bad-rooms and a drawing/dining room.(3) The petitioner become the tenant of the premises in 1969.(4) The landlord filed the petition for eviction on the ground that theground floor of the premises was bonafide required by him for the residenceof himself and his family members and that they had no other reasonably suitable accommodatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »