Delhi Court November 1981 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.
Sohan Lal Taneja, Etc. Vs. Delhi Administration, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT32; 1982LabIC1018
Sachar, J. (1) This appeal is against .the decision of the learned single Judge by which he rejected the challenge to the virus of the Delhi Administration .Subordinate Ministerial/Executive Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter to be called the 1967 Rules) published on 10-2-1967. The Delhi Administration like any other State Administration has large number of services under it. Each service was governed by its own respective rules. One of the departments to which the appellants belong is the Directorate of Social Welfare. The appellants I to 14 are Probation Officers Grade II/Case Workers. Appellants 15 to 17 are working as Inspectors, 'Deputy Superintendents, Supervisors-cum-Probation Officers, Grade I and appellant No. 18 & 19 are working as Superintendent Institution and Superintendent training-cum-Probation Centre at the time when the writ petition was filed. (2) The Directorate of Social Welfare has its own service rules for recruitment to the posts in the said department. Earlier to ...
Sushma Khanna Vs. Suresh Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1981
Reported in: 1982RLR47
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This petition u/s 115, Cpc, is directed against the order of the Adj, Delhi, dt. 1.12.80 directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1000.00 as litigation expenses to the wife and Rs. 450.00 p.m. as maintenance for her support w.e.f. 30.9.80, the date when she made an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act ('the Act') in proceedings for divorce u/s 13 of the Act. (2) Briefly stated the facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites at Delhi on 27.1.79. They lived together at Madras. The respondent is employed in I.T.C. Hotels. Previously the was posted at Hotel Chola, Madras but now the is posted at Jammu in Asia Hotel. The wife in her application u/s 24 of the Act, alleges that she has been in possession of few Share certificates of the value of Rs 2000.00 and that she has no other source of income. She has claimed Rs. 5000.00 as litigation expenses and Rs. 2000.00 per month as maintenance. The trial court has held that...
A.K. Rawat Vs. Shakuntala Anand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT14; 1981(3)DRJ20; 1982RLR115
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 25th September, 1980 dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and consequently passing an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act against him. The respondents filed an application under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act for the eviction of the petitioner alleging that they were the owners of the property bearing municipal No. 5700, Gali No. 80-81, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, that the premises are residential, that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in December, 1969 on a monthly rent of Rs.l30.00 , that a rent note was executed but the some was not available at the time when he filed the eviction application. It has been further alleged that the suit premises were required for the residence of respondents No....
R.S. Rajan Vs. Jamna Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1981
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ70
Goswamy, J. (1) This Second Appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 23rd May, 1981 property the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the landlord and dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner tenant regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction. (2) The landlord-respondent has filed a petition for eviction and obtained the order of eviction against the petitioner for the eviction in 7th August, 1977 with reepect to the property the dispules. How the property was not vacated, the landlord took out the execution. In execution, the tenant-objector asked for the stay of the dispossession on the ground that he had filed objections to the execution of the decree and one of the grounds taken in the objections is that the decree passed by the Additional Rent Controller was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the property is situated in the revenue estate of Behapur to which the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was not applicable at the relevant time. (3)...
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Dharam Pal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1981
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1394; 21(1982)DLT50
Kapur, J.1. The main question involved in this petition before the court relates to the nature of the custody that can be ordered by a Magistrate during the investigation of a serious offence. The provisions of the Constitution as well as the substantive provisions of the ordinary Municipal law of this country protect a person against unlawful arrest. A person who is arrested by the police can only be arrested in certain specified circumstances. In the case of certain serious offences described as cognizable offences, the police can arrest without warrants, in other cases, the arrest has to be on the basis of a warrant issued by a Magistrate. The provisions of Art. 22(2) of the Constn. require such an arrested person to be produced before a Magistrate within, a period of 24 hours. S. 56 of the Cri.P.C. requires that the arrested person should be produced before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case or before an officer-in-charge of a Police Station. If the offence is a bailable ...
Sushil Kumar and Others Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1981
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT687(Del)
ORDER1. On 9th July, 1968, the officers of Central Excise, Nagpur, seized a large quantity of gold from a house in Kamptee. The gold has been ordered to be confiscated under the Gold (Control) Ordinance 1968. The confiscation quashed and the gold delivered to them.2. The law relating to the control of gold is of recent origin. It was first introduced in this country in 1963. Over the next decade it was frequently amended and thereby underwent may changes. For purposes of this case it is necessary to trace the changes in the law as regards ownership and possession of primary gold, so as to see what legal result the facts produced from time to time. But before I do that, the facts themselves need some considerable exposition.3. Some thirty years ago there lived a gentleman by the name of Keshrimal Porwal at Kamptee. He had two flourishing businesses : a bidi factory at Kamptee, and a gold and silver shop in Mandsaur. He had residences at both those places. On 7th October, 1952, he died o...
Sushil Kumar and ors. Vs. VipIn Manek Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1981
Reported in: ILR1982Delhi276
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) On 9th July 1968, the officers of Central Excise, Nagpur, seized a large quantity of gold from a house in Kamptee: The gold has been ordered to be confiscated under the Gold (Control) Ordinance 1968: The petitioners before me claim to be the owners of that gold. They seek to have the confiscation quashed and the gold delivered to them. (2) The law relating to the control of gold is of recent origin. It was first introduced in this country in 1953.; Over the next decade it was', frequently amended and thereby underwent many chaises, .por purposes of this case it is necessary to trace the changes is the .law as regards ownership and possession of primary gold', so as to see what legal result the 'facts produced from time. to time. But 'before I do that, the facts themselves need some considerable exposition. (3) Some thirty years ago there lived a gentleman by the name of Keshrimal Porwal at Kamptee. He had two flourishing businesses : a bidi factory at Kamptee, and...
Nanak Chand Sharma Vs. Union of India (U.O.i.) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1981
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT246
D.K. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the circumstance that the petitioner who is a displaced person from West Pakistan was allotted certain land comprised in Khasra No. 759 situated at Tughlakabad, New Delhi, which khasra measures 44 bighas 4 bids was and eventually he was granted a sanad regarding a portion of that khasra in the end of November, 1966. The area granted to the petitioner measures 3 bighas, 6 biswas. It was assigned khasra No. 759/1/2/2/1.2. It appears from the documents on record that this land had been acquired by the Central Government by means of a Notification dated July 26, 1963 published in the Gazette of India of August 3, 1963. It was acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Notification covered all properties in the State of Delhi which had vested in the Custodian under Section 11 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. The said...
Ram Lubhaya Kapoor Vs. Ram Prakash Mehra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT119; 1982(3)DRJ26; 1982RLR35
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This civil revision under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ii directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 27th September, 1980 whereby the petitioner-tenant was granted leave to defend the eviction application to a limited extent. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is entitled to be granted leave to defend on all the points. The learned counsel for respondents raises preliminary objection that revision against an interlocutory order passed under Sectn 25B of the Act is not maintainable under Section 25B(8) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that every order passed by the Controller under Section 25B of the Act is revisable within the meaning sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Act. He relies upon Vinod Kumar Chowdhry v. Smt. Narain Devi Taneja, : [1980]2SCR746 . In the case before the Supreme Court the landlord's application for eviction was dismissed by the Controller. The landlord filed a ...
Arjansingh and ors. Vs. Deputy Mal JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-1981
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT14; ILR1982Delhi11; 1982RLR60
Avadh Behari, J. (1) 'OF all the exploits of equity, the largest, and the most important is the invention and development of the trust'. So Prof. Maitland was accustomed to tell his students. (Maitland Equity p. 23). This case essentially concerns itself with the question of trust. (2) On 27th May, 1967, three inhabitants of a colony known as Model Town in Delhi instituted a suit for declaration and injunction] against a number of defendants, chief of them being Delhi Land & Finance Private Limited (DLF). Later on its name was changed to Dlf United Private Limited. For the sate of brevity I will call it DLF. (3) Dlf developed a colony known as Model Town. This colony supplies the background of the case. Dlf sold plots to people who built their houses thereon. Some land was set apart for public purpose such as street, park, school, market etc. In this suit the dispute centres round such two sites 'earmarked for public building', each measuring O.5 acre in this residential colony of Mode...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›