Delhi Court July 1979 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1979 Page 1 of about 19 results (0.020 seconds)Ravinder Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980RLR120
V.D. Misra, J. (1) Ravinder Kumar alias Ravi has been convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code, by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, for having committed the murder of one Farasat Ali Khan. Ravi now appeals against his conviction and sentence.(2) Ravi and Farasat Ali Khan were friends. They were living in the same street. On May 26, 1975 at 6.30 P.M. or so they quarreled before the shop of one Imami, vegetable-seller near Tiraha Mandir, Bharat Nagar, New Delhi. The dispute, related to some money matter. Ravi was demanding money from Farasat Ali Khan who was asserting that he had returned the money to the person from whom he had borrowed. Exchange of hot words and abuses resulted. Ravi suddenly took out a chhura (Exihibit P1) from his Dhaba and thurst it in the abdomen of Farasat Ali. The latter fell down in a pool of blood and Ravi ran away. The injured was immediately removedto the nearby Holy Family Hospital where he was declared dead. John Jacob (PW5), a clerk of Hospit...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Samal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT243
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a former Joint Secretary to the Union Government assails the validity of the Presidential order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service under Rule 56 (i) of the Fundamental Rules, on the eve of his attaining the age of 57 years, on the ground that the President was of opinion that it was in public interest to do so, and raises an interesting question if premature retirement could be justified merely on the ground that, on account of notoriety or unsavoury reputation that a public servant may have acquired on account of adverse publicity of certain charges, forming subject matter of departmental or criminal proceedings, which otherwise could not be taken into account, he was not acceptable to any Ministry or Department of the Central Government and it was, thereforee, not possible to utilise his services in any effective and meaningful manner.(2) The following resume of the service career of the...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Jain, Etc. Vs. Delhi Development Authority, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi29
V.S. Deshpande, C.J. (1) Is the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) a 'local authority' within the meaning of section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act is the question raised by this writ petition. The definition is as follows : 'local authority' shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund ; ''The first part of the definition is clear. A local authority can be identified easily when it is a municipal committee, district board or body of port commissioners. The second part of the definition is divisible into two sub-divisions. If an authority is legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a municipal fund not much difficulty will arise in identifying local authority because a municipal fund will mean the fund of a municipal committee or a municipal corporation and unless the fund belongs...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Talwar Vs. Jai Dev Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 16(1979)DLT225
(1) This is tenant's second.appeal against the order of the Rent controller as affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal ordering the eviction of the appellant.(2) An eviction application was brought on the ground of clause (d) of proviso to Section 14(1) namely that the tenant had not resided in the premises for a period of six months immediately before the day of filing of the eviction petition. The appellant is a, tenant in the premises since 1942. It appears that some time in 1969 an eviction petition had been brought .against the appellant, which I am told is still pending We are however not c.oncerned with that in these proceedings. This application was filed on 17.7.1973, on the allegation that for the last six months neither the appellant nor-his members of the family resized in the. premisesin dispute. Both the Rent Control and the Rent Control Tribunal have found in favor of the respondent landlord and have passed an order for eviction. The appellant being aggrieved has filed thi...
Tag this Judgment!World S. News Vs. Des Raj
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1979RLR537
N.N. Goswami, J. (1) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-5-1974 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The petition of eviction had been filed on 26-10-1971 against the appellant for non-payment of arrears of rent inspire of notice of demand stating inter alias that no rent had been paid by the appellant since 1-9-1970. It also alleged that notice dated 24-8-1971 was served upon the appellant on 25-6-1971 whereby its tenancy was also determined with effect from 30th September, 1971. The permission of the Competent Authority. Slum Areas was also stated to have been obtained before filing the petition for ejectment. (2) In the written statement filed by the appellant the relationship of landlord and tenant and the agreed rate of rent were admitted. Regarding the allegations about the service of notice it was stated that receipt of notice mentioned in the corresponding para of the petition for eviction was admitted, but it was contended that the same was inva...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Commercial Corporation Vs. Behari Lal Lakshman Pershad and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT61
A.B. Rohatgi, J. (1) The plaintiff M/s. Behari Lal Lakshman Pershad brought & suit for the recovery of Rs 14,000.00 against two defendants, (i) M/. Eastern Commercial Corporation, Patiala (the Corporation) & (ii) Shyam Lal Maheshwari. The plaintiff's case was that the Corporation bad purchased 400 electric wooden poles of the value of Rs. 17,000.00 from Maheshwari.(2) The Corporation had issued two cheques of Rs. 12,750.00 and Rs. 4,250.00 dated 11.1.1961 and 24.1.l961 respectively in favor of Maheshwari. The said cheques were dishonoured when presented to the bank. Out of the amount of two cheques the Corporation paid a sum of Rs. 7,000.00 .A balance of Rs. 10,000.00 remained due to Maheshwari which the Corporation did not pay.(3) On July 25, 1974 Maheshwari assigned the debt payble to him by the Corporation to the plaintiff M/s. Behari Lal Lakshman Pershad by means of a deed of assignment. Maheshwari also endorsed the two cheques in favor of M/s. Behari Lal Lakshman Pershad.(4) M/S. ...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Khan Vs. Lakshmi Narain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1979RLR534
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The facts of this case are that the plaintiff- respondent instituted a suit on June 2, 1972 for recovery of rent to the tune of Rs. 3,600 and ejectment of the petitioner, it appears, from a vacant plot of land. The petitioner took up the plea that it was not he but it was the Western Engineering Co. (of which the petitioner is a partner) which took the premises on rent and applied to the Director of Industries for registration of the factory for the manufacture of refrigerator parts. It was further pleaded that it was not a vacant plot of land but constructed premises were taken on rent and thereforee the suit was barred and a petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction should have been filed. On March 28, 1973 issues were framed. The plaintiff closed his evidence on November 18, 1977. February 9, 1978 was the date fixed for the evidence of the defendant-petitioner. The petitioner submitted a list of 11 witnesses. By October 6, 1978 the petitioner had exami...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd. Vs. the Scotch Whisky Association
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 17(1980)DLT466
O.N. Vohra, J.(1) The short point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the brand name 'Highland Chief used in relation to the product described as 'Malted Whisky' along with a device of the head and shoulders of a Scottish gentleman wearing feather bonnet and plaid and the tartan edging gives the impression that the product in relation to which it is used comes from. Scottland and is thus likely to deceive or confuse the unwary purchaser in India.(2) Facts relevant for the purpose are these. Dyer Meakin Breweries Limited (now Mohan Meakin Breweries Limited), hereinafter referred to as the appellant, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1914, manufacturing various types of liquors and having its registered office at Solan in Himachal Pradesh. The appellant filed an application with the Trade Mark Registry seeking Registration of a trade-mark consisting of a label, inter alia, portraying in vivid colours the bust of what appears to be a Scottish so...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Murgai Vs. Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1979Delhi232
1. 'You cannot', they say, 'have the cake and eat it too'. But a plaintiff who obtains a temporary injunction against a defendant eats the cake even before getting it. It is obvious, thereforee, that temporary injunction, for instance, under Order Xxxix Rule 2 granted by the learned single Judge to the plaintiff respondent against the defendant appellant in this case can be justified only if it was, based on a good prima facie case made out by the plaintiff showing that in all probability the plaintiff was entitled to obtain ultimately the permanent' injunction sought by it as could appear, at this stage before going into evidence from the pleadings and the admitted documents. The appellant contends that no prima facie case was made out by the respondent and the temporary injunction should be vacated in the appeal. We must, thereforee, first see the facts and the pleadings, and the law applicable on such facts to know if a good prima facie case was made out to justify the grant of temp...
Tag this Judgment!Shops and Commercial Workers Union Vs. Management of Ayurvedic and Una ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1979(39)FLR411]; 1980LabIC892; 1979RLR455
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) This is a petition U/Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the award by Additional Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 3, by which it has held that Hindustani Dawakhana is not an Industry and the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act was thereforee beyond the power of the Lt. Governor. (2) The dispute having arisen between the management of Board and its workers as represented by Shops and Commercial Workers Union, Delhi the Lt. Governor of Delhi by his order dated 28-12-1966 referred the dispute to the tribunal. Two items were referred to the tribunal. With regard to item No. 1 the union stated that they would seek a separate reference and the reference be confined to term No. 2 which referred to the retirement of certain workmen who were employed by the Board in Hindustani Dawakhana. A preliminary objection was taken by the management that Hindustani Dawakhana is not an industry and thereforee no reference can be made. From the history given by the tr...
Tag this Judgment!