Delhi Court July 1980 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1980 Page 1 of about 23 results (0.017 seconds)Agents and Manufacturers Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT383; 1980RLR567
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) These are three letters patent appeals from a common order of a learned single judge dated February. 5, 1973. (2) These are the facts. The appellant M/s. Agents and Manufacturers, are a partnership firm. They manufacture wooden furniture. They make base and cover of sewing machines. For their manufacturing business they have taken three separate place in Shahdara. Two of these are in Chotta Bazar and the third in Circular Road. Circular Road place is at a distance of one to two furlongs from Chhotta Bazar. These place bear different municipal numbers. In Chhotta Bazar the numbers of the places are 525/16 and 131. In Circular Road the municipal number is 508. It is common ground that at two places, namely, 525/16, Ghhotta Bazar and 508, Circular Road there is supply of power and they are equipped with machinery. The wooden base and cover of the sewing mechines are manufactured with the aid of power. At No. 131 the manufactured goods are polished, furnished, ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. Upender Nath
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT46; 1981RLR20
Sultan Singh, J.(1) Respdt was allotted a plot in Chitranjan Park. He entered into an agreement for its construction with petitioner 1 and executed a Power of Attorney (POW) in favor of his wife on 21.8.71. On 16.2.71, he gave a notice of cancellation and then by a Regd. deed revoked Pow on 15.2.77. He then filed a suit for declaration seeking 2 declarations one about the agreement and the other about POW. Petitioner made an application u/s 34 of Arbitration Act on the ground that agreement contained an arbitration clause and that Deft. No. 2 was not a necessary party. Trial Court allowed the application. But Adj in appeal reversed the order. The Defts. filed revision. Plaintiff opposed it on the ground that revision was not maintainably High Court agreed with Adj that Deft. No, 2 was not an unnecessary party and hence suit was not liable to be stayed u/s 34] On maintainability of revision, it stated in para 5 on words : (2) S. 115 applies only to cases in which no appeal lies, and whe...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1981]51CompCas487(Delhi); 1980RLR739
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Consitution raises a short point. The question is whether the petitioner company is the holding company and whether Poonam Hotals Limited its subsidiary. The facts giving rise to the question were as follows ;--(2) The petitioner Oriental Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (Oriental Limited) is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Ast 1913 and shall be deemed to be incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act). Poonam Hotals Limited (Poonam Hotals) is also a company incorporated under the Act for carrying on business of hoteliers. They have a paid up capital of Rs. 24,70,000.00 divided into 24700 equity shares of Rs. 100.00 each. In March 1974 Oriental Limited acquired 2400 equity shares of the face value of Rs. 100.00 each of Poonam Hotels for the aggregate price of Rs. 2,08,900.00 that is, at the average rate of Rs. 89.00 per share. This investmen...
Tag this Judgment!Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Gajpal Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980RLR634
Avadh Behari, J.(1) The Collector must determine this. It is his mandatory duty to do so and he must mention this in the award. He cannot leave matters to a future determination.(2) Land in Village Jafrabad was acquired by Govt. for planned development of Delhi by notification dt/ 13.11.59 issued u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act Notification u/s 6 was issued on 7/1th July, 66. In 1967 notices were issued to Respondents u/s 9 calling upon them to appear before Land Acquisition Collector. Respondents filed their claims before the Collector, but none of the owners of the land from whom the respondents had purchased the same for constructing houses filed any claims. The respondent claimed to be owners of certain areas of land situated in Khasra No. 87 on which they had constructed houses and of which they were paying house tax to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. They claimed that they were entitled to compensation of the land acquired by the Government, (3) In due course the Collector made...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Singh Vs. Sudhir Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980(1)DRJ191; 1980RLR645
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The appellant is tenant, while respondent is landlord. Landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant U/S 14(1)(a) Delhi Control Act, 1958 (called the Act). An order U/S 15(1) was passed which the tenant failed to comply and thereforee an eviction order was passed by the Controller on 4 12.79 and it was confirmed by the Tribunal on 25.4.80. The contention of the tenant is that the notice of demand does not comply with requirements ofS. 106 of the T.P. Act, 1882 read with S. 14(1)(a) of the Act [Sections 106, T.P.A. & S. 14(1)(a) are then reproduced.](2) S. 106 of T.P.A. is in two parts 1st part refers to the manner in which tenancies for agricultural, manufacturing & other purposes are to be terminated Accordingly agricultural and manufacturing tenancies are to be terminated by 6 months notice expiring with the end of the year of tenancy while tenancies for other purposes are to be terminated by 15 days notice expiring with the end of the month of tenancy...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT460; [1981(42)FLR226]; 1981LabIC179; (1981)ILLJ267Del; 1981(1)SLJ406(Delhi)
B.B. Kirpal, J.1. The appellant was appointed by M/s. Toshniwal Brother Private Limited (hereinafter to as the respondent company) as an Accounts Officer in August, 1964. The salary of the appellant was fixed at Rs. 600 in the grade of Rs. 600-50-800. The appointment had been made pursuant to an application dated 26th March, 1964, submitted by the appellant. In the said application the appellant had described himself as M. Com., L.L.B. with special proficiency in company accounts and Audit, Income-tax law, statistics, organisation business management, etc. In April 1965, the appellant was designated as an officer on special duty. In 1966 he was transferred on deputation as secretary to the Industrial Service Bureau, a service or consultancy organisation in which the Joint managing Director of the respondent company was interested. In the year 1968 the appellant was appointed as stores purchase officer. He was also required to look after the legal department and was to draw a salary of ...
Tag this Judgment!Premi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1169
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The appellant was convicted by a judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on May 28, 1979, under S. 302 read with S. 34 Indian Penal Code ., and sentenced to imprisonment for life. His applications for suspension of sentence were rejected on merits on August 2, 1979, and on November 12, 1979. He has moved a fresh application for suspension of sentence and bail on the ground that following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab, : 1977CriLJ1746 ; Babu Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, : 1978CriLJ651 ; and Chandgi Ram v. Delhi Administration, Cr. Misc. Petition No, 2961 of 1969, decided on September 19, 1979(3), this court has been releasing the convicts on bail where they have undergone 3 years and more of the sentence even in case where they were convicted for life imprisonment. He referred to a few of such order in cases, namely, Cr. M. 982 of 1978 decided on August 7, 1978, Cr. M. 1061 of 1978, decid...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Milkfood Manufacturers Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Thro ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1981LC17D(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of milkfood and dairy products. The said products are packed in bottles at several packing stations in India. The goods are marked under the brand name of 'Horlicks'.2. According to the petitioner, on the sales which it makes, it gives discount to its dealers in two ways. Either it gives a dealer 13 bottles of 'Horlicks' and charges for 12 bottles or it gives cash discount. The rate of cash discount is varied between 1.75 to 1.5%.3. By the Finance Act of 1969, 10% ad valorem duty is chargeable on earnings. The petitioner was required to submit price list to the Excise Authorities. The controversy in this writ petition is with regard to the non-approval of the price list inter alias with regard to the aforesaid two items and the other discounts claimed by the petitioner. The price lists were not approved by various orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. The petitioner received order dated 28th Apr...
Tag this Judgment!J.L. Paul Vs. Ranjit Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980(1)DRJ94
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This is a petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dated January 30, 1980 whereby alter refusing leave to contest, an order for eviction of the petitioner under Section 14A of the Act, was passed by the Controller, Delhi. The respondent/Landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitiones/tenant under section 14A(1) of the Act. It is alleged that the petitioner is his tenant on the first floor of property at plot N-164, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 800.00 besides electricity and water charges and the premises are residential which were let on April 1, 1973. The respondent further alleges that he is in occupation of residential premises No. M-2766, Netaji, Ngr New Delhi allotted to him by the Central Govt., that he is required the General/Special orders dated September 9, 1975, December 26, 1975 and July 14, 1977 to vacate the said Government allotted premises or in...
Tag this Judgment!Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1174; 18(1980)DLT405; 1981RLR37
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By an order passed on April 8, 1980, the petitioner was granted interim bail under section 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner's case in the petition was that First Information Report No. 95 had been registered on March 1, 1980, at Police Station Kotwali, Ludbiana. against him for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 411, Indian Penal Code, on a complaint made by Shri Kapur Singh, I.C.S. (Retired), to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab. (2) It is stated by the counsel for the State of Punjab that after April 8, 1980, the Investigating Officer has not contacted or arrested the petitioner. It is further stated that prior to the filing of the present petition 480 books of 'Sachi Sakhi', alleged to have been printed and published clandestinely by the petitioner, had been recovered from his business premises at Delhi. (3) Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. ...
Tag this Judgment!