Delhi Court August 1980 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.
Om Parkash and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1980
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi463; 1980RLR706
Avadit Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a straight fight between the direct recruits and departmental promotees. They fight on the question, of seniority. Both are members of Indian Foreign Service (Branch 'B')- The respondent Union of India, have fixed the seniority of these five appellants who are direct recruits and the respondents Nos. 3 to 121 who are departmental promotees according to the date of their recruitment irrespective of the fact whether they belonged to one class or the other. The direct recruits contend that their seniority should be fixed on the basis of (1) quota of 25 per cent reserved for them in the service, and (2) on the principle of rotation of 3:1. This means that after every three departmental, promotees one direct recruit will get confirmation in the list of seniority. (2) The Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India published a list of seniority of promotees and direct recruits on 8th August, 1971 prepared on the basis of the date of recruitmen...
Surendra Lal Mahendra Vs. JaIn Glazers and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-1980
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi257
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts germane to the disposal of this application underorder 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with s. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction concisely are that the plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their ser- vants, or agents etc. from infringing in any manner, patent No. 143964 dated 21st July, 1976 entitled 'Laminating Apparatus' of which he claims to be proprietor and patentee, by manufacture, sale or offering for sale or using any apparatus for producing a laminate according to the said patent and for rendition of accounts. It is averred that the invention known as 'Laminating Apparatus' relates to an apparatus for producing a laminate by wet process as distinguished from dry process; plaintiff being already grantee of patent No. 142811 dated 14th November, 1974 and patent No. 143168 of 1st of October, 1975 which are also in respect of an invention for laminating apparatus but by dry process. He asser...
Electric Construction and Equipment Company Limited Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1980
Reported in: 1981LC237D(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Electric Construction & Equipment Co. Ltd. has a registered office at Delhi and has a factory at Sonepat (Haryana) where the petitioner manufactures, inter alia, electric bulbs, and tube-lights. The question raised in this writ petition is regarding the determination of the assessable value of the aforesaid goods manufactured by the petitioner under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act) as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 22 of 1973 but with effect from 1.10.1975.2. As stated earlier, the petitioner manufactures bulbs and tube-lights at Sonepat in Haryana. On 31.1.74 the petitioner filed with the Excise Authorities a price list as required under Rule 173-C of the rules made under the Act. It may be mentioned by way of illustration, that according to this price-list, the estimated manufacturing cost of electric bulbs of 100 watts worked out of Re. 0.91 per piece and that of tube-lights of 40...
JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS570D; 1982(10)ELT43(Del); ILR1981Delhi222
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The petitioner company imported 13.500 M.T. of Rbd Palm Oil from foreign suppliers. The import of Rbd Palm Oil was allowed under open general license by Import Trade Control Public Notice No. 64 Itc (P&B;)/78 issued by Ministry of Commerce, Civil Supplies E and Cooperation, Govt. of India on September 2, 1978. Bills of entry for the total quantity of Palm Oil were duly presented to the authorities after the ship entered Bombay Port. The oil in question was contained in stainless steel drums. The proper officer cleared the goods after physical checking and satisfying himself that the import of goods was not prohibited under section 47 of the Customs Act. There was no restriction, at the time of the import, that Edible Oil should be imported only in a particular type of drum or container. The drum or container could be of steel or iron as referred to inserial No. 73-23 of the First Schedule to the Import Control Order. 'Stainless Steel' is included in the expression 'Ste...
Radhka NaraIn and ors. Vs. Chandra Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi118; ILR1982Delhi525
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This is a suit for possession by picemption. The pre-cnipti^n is claimed on ground Fifthly of action 16 of the Punjab Pre-Emption Act. The relevant part of section 16 read's asunder : 16 Of The right of pre-emption in respect of urban immovable property shall vest : Fifthly, where the sale is of a servient property in the owners of the dominant property, and vice versa ;' (2) The facts proved and which are not in dispute are that properties bearing Nos. 2777 and 2778 situated in Chirakhana : Street, Delhi were owned by Shri Shiv Sahai Mal, the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2. Shri Maha Narain had two wives; from the first wife he had two sons, namely, Suraj Narain and Radhka Narain and from the second wife 5 sons, namely, Prem Narain, Bishan Narain, Govind Narain, Kirpa Narain and Purshottairi Narain. In 1951 there was a partition between the sons of Maha Narain and property No. 2777 fell to the share of the sons from the second wife ' and pr...
Electric Construction and Equipment Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1980
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT669(Del); ILR1981Delhi435
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) The petitioner, M/s Electric Constructioa & Equipment Co. Ltd., has a registered office at Delhi and has a factory at Sonepat (Haryana) where the petitioner manufactures, inter alia, electric bulbs and tube-lights. The question raised in this writ petition is regarding the determination of the assessable' value of theaforesaid goods manufactured by the petitioner 'under Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 22 of 1973 but with effect from 1-10-1975. (2) As stated earlier, the petitioner manufactures. bulbs and tube-lights at Sonepat in Haryana. On 31-1-1974 the petitioner filed with the Excise Authorities a price list as required under Rule 173-C of the rules made under the Act. It may be mentioned by way of illustration that according to this price-list, the estimated manu- facturing cost of electric budbs of 100 Watts worked out to Re. O.91 per piece and that of tube-light...
Bishamber Dayal Vs. Ram Pershad, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-1980
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi272
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This suit for partition and rendition of accounts brought by Bishamber Dayal, was initially against his two brothers, namely, Ram Pershad and Chhotey Lal. Chhotey Lal, however, died during the pendency of this suit some time in the year 1972. He was unmarried and has not left behind any issue. There is no dispure that the plaintiff and his brother Ram Pershad who is the other defendant, were his only heirs. His name, thereforee, was struck off from the plaint.(2) According to the plaintiff, he and Ram Pershad defendant came to Delhi in late twenties from village Subhana, District Rohtak, and started joint business on road pavements of selling old books and periodicals. From the earnings saved there from, they obtained shop No. 5701, Nai Sarak, Delhi on rent under .their names Ram Pershad Bishamber Dayal in about the year 1936, and continued the same business under the name 'Vaish Book Depot'. Still another shop bearing No. 892-893, Nai Sarak. Delhi, was tatken by the...
Premier Tyres Ltd. Vs. the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1980
Reported in: [1981]51CompCas316(Delhi); ILR1986Delhi317
Sachar, J. (1) What sanctity and effectiveness is to be attached to the Bank guarantees which are also called performance guarantees is the question that calls for decision in this appeal.(2) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge by which he refused the application of the appellant for the interim injunction (arising out of a suit filed by appellant) restraining the respondent from Realizing any amount in pursuance of the bank guarantee dated 6-3-1979 furnished to it by the appellant/[plaintiff from the Bank of India.(3) The plaintiff/appellant is a manufacturer of tyres. One of the raw materials which is used in the manufacture of tyres is natural rubber. The import of natural rubber is canalised through respondent/defendant. For their requirements the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for the supply by the respondent of 360 Mt of SMA-20 quality of natural rubber. Along with the registration application a bank guarantee from the Bank of ...
Suleman Vs. Appellate Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi39; 18(1980)DLT444; ILR1981Delhi41
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The short question in this appeal is about the meaning of the word 'possession' as used in section 10(a)(iv) of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (Act of 1951).(2) The appellant Suleman and some of his collaterals were co-sharers in land comprising Khewat No. 19 Khatauni No. 115 of 121 in village Satbari Delhi. They were the owners in possession of this land before the partition of the country. On account of the division of the country and the communal disturbances which followed in its wake the collaterals migrated to Pakistan. On their migration their right, title and interest in the property vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property by virtue of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act of 1950).(3) The share of the collaterals in the said land was found to be 11/12. The appellant's share was only 1/12. The appellant was a non-evacuee. The Custodian laid in- formation before the Competent Officer under the Act of 1951 that in the a...
Shankar Lal Sharma, Etc. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1980
Reported in: 18(1980)DLT465; ILR1981Delhi506
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) only. recruitment direct through Corporation the in Doctors Homoeopathic Hakim Vaid of posts filling from Delhi Municipal restraining direction or order writ, appropriate an seeks India Constitution 226 Article under petition 'Resolved that after considering the Commissioner's letter No. 5974/C and C dated 12-12-78 and the report included in it and the proposal No. 99 dated 3-1-79 of the Appointments, Promotions Disciplinary and Allied Matters Committee, Col. 10 of the Recruitment Regulations for the posts of Vaids, Hakims and Homoeopathic Doctors as approved vide decision No. 446/GN/Corp. dt. 2-5-1975 will . stand amended as follows : Method of recruitment 50% through direct Percentage for direct recruitment recruits and through 50% through depart other methods of filing mental promotions.' vacant posts. (3) There is no dispute to the above mentioned facts. The Corporation issued a circular dated August 21, 1979 inviting applications for the post of Vaid/Hakim/Homo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »