Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1983]54CompCas166(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This is an application wherein it is prayed that C.As. P/Sc. Nos. 297 and 298 of 1980 should be revived. C.A. No. 297 of 1980 was an application under s. 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and C.A. No. 298 of 1980 was an application for a stay of the winding-up order. 2. M/s. Rajdhani Grains & Jaggery Exchange Ltd., the company in liquidation, was occupying a portion of the building under M/s. Punjab Exchange Ltd. According of M/s. Punjab Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') the said company owed money by way of license fee and damage. A winding-up petition was filed on 22nd February, 1975, being C.P. No. 23 of 1975. The grounds were taken in the petition. The first ground was that the company was unable to pay its debt and the second ground was that it had ceased to do business. By order dated 23rd April, 1980, this court held that the company was unable to pay its debts and was commercially insolvent. The court also held that the company has s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1777; 20(1981)DLT114
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) The charge framed has been one of cheating under section 420 Indian Penal Code . for having issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 4,250.00 while effecting purchase of 5 room-coolers when the accused Harbans Lal knew that he did not have sufficient amount in his bank account to meet the payment of the cheque, and, thereforee, it bounced. It was framed on 25.10.1976. (2) Thereafter the prosecution evidence was completed between the period 26.10.1977 and 6 1.1978. The accused also led defense evidence which too was completed on 2.8.1978. The case was thereafter fixed for hearing of final arguments on a number of dates but the accused or his counsel were not available. On 2.2.1979, however an application was moved from the side of the accused under section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that since relief on the basis of dishonoured cheque .could be specifically obtained under order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no criminality could be attributed, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1983]54CompCas157(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi821
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. (1) This is a suit for permanent injunction. (2) These are the facts. The defendant Cimmco International (hereinafter called 'Cimmco') entered into a contract dated June 20, 1978 (hereinafter called the 'export contract) with Sudan Railways for the supply of bearing plates and spikes of the value of Rs. 51,72,000. Subsequently on, Jan. 23, 1979 Cimmco entered into a contract with the plaintiff, Bhushan Industrial Company (P) Ltd., (hereinafter called Bhushan) in terms of which Bhushan was to supply certain quantity of bearing plates to Cimmco which Cimmco in their turn had agreed to supply to Sudan Railways under the export contract. (3) For the due performance of the contract made between Cimmco and Bhushan, a performance guarantee dated February 17, 1979 issued by M[s. Grindlays Bank Ltd. New Delhi, defendant No. 2 for the amount of Rs. 1,44,000 was furnished by Bhushan to Cimmco. This guarantee was for a period of one year. It was revalidated on 22-4-1980 fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1982Delhi1009
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) The first petitioner in this writ petition in the Rao Tula Ram College Society. It was registered on 2nd March, 1965 under the Societies' Registration Act (Act 30 of 1860) as amended in 1957 and extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. The second petitioner. Rao Birender Singh, is the President of the above Society who was authorised by a resolution passed by the Society at an emergent meeting held on 10th March, 1979 to take steps for challenging certain action taken by the respondents which according to the petitioners was arbitrary and illegal. The first respondent is the University of Delhi through the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University. The second respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'R-2') is Sri K. B. Rohatgi, Director of South Delhi Campus of Delhi University. (2) By the above writ petition the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a resolution of the Executive Council (EC) of the first respondent dated 6th March, 1979 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1981Delhi344; 20(1981)DLT28; 1981(2)DRJ179; ILR1981Delhi1089; 1981RLR317
Leila Seth, J. (1) This landlady-tenant litigation has had a chequered history. (2) Smt. Poori Bai, the respondent-landlady, filed aa application for eviction of the appellant-tenant Mr. B. P. N. Shrivastava from the first floor of premises No. D-34, Ajay Enclave, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. The application was made under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (to be referred to in brief as 'the Act'). (3) In the said application it was asserted that a notice of demand had been served by registered post on 30th June, 1970. It was also stated that the notice of termination of tenancy had been so served on 3rd August, 1970. This application under Section 14(i)(a) of the Act was filed on 14th September, 1970. (4) A written statement dated 7th October, 1970 was filed by the tenant. It was contended therein, inter alia, that as the landlady had cut off the water and electricity supply to the demised premises with effect from 20th May, 1970 and looked t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1982]136ITR203(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The question referred to us in the case of the assessed is as follow : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 23,069 being expenditure on milk used to test the assessed-company's plant and machinery before the plant and machinery was ready to commence commercial production is to be regarded as part of the cost of the said plant and machinery for the purpose of computing the allowance for depreciation and development rebate admissible to the assessed-company ?' 2. Although the question is as unusual one, we find that in reality the answer to the question is already covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT : [1975]98ITR167(SC) . 3. The facts of the case are that Food Specialities Ltd., the assessed in this case, was engaged in the business of condensed milk sold under the trade mark 'Milkmaid'. A new plant was set up for this purposes. After the factory ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT446
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The petitioner is a Specialist Doctor in Grade I of the Central Health Services. At the relevant time he was holding the post of Professor of Ophthalmology, Maulana Azad Medical College under Delhi Administration. He was born on 1st May, 1923. He joined the service of the Central Government on 26.8.1957. It appears that he was involved in litigation with the Central Government since 1967 for various claims. He. filed a Write Petition, being No. 896 of 1971, which was decided by this Court on 17.3.1980. The petitioner claims that under the said judgment he is entitled to the arrears of ever Rs. 30,000. A few months prior to the said decision the petitioner was ordered to be transferred to Pondicherry. The petitioner filled Civil Writ Petition No. (2) On 1.3.1980 the petitioner, by a writt communication, requsted for voluntary retirement with effect from 30 September, 1980. His due date of retirement, however, was 30.4.1981. In his letter seeking premature retirement the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 20(1981)DLT25b; ILR1981Delhi733
G.C. Jain, J.(1) The appellant, Bhola Ram, has preferred this appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated October 24, 1972, dismissing his writ petition.(2) The appellant joined Police service as a Foot Constable on March 28, 1933 in the North West Frontier Province (now in Pakistan). He was promoted as a Foot Constable selection grade on March 1, 1934 and as officiating Head Constable on November 26, 1944 but was reverted as Constable selection grade with effect from March 27, 1945. He was again promoted as officiating Head Constable with effect from April 10, 1945 and was reverted as Foot Constable time scale on August 9. 1945. He was re-promoted as Foot Constable selection grade on March 1, 1946.(3) After migrating to India, on the partition of the country, the appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Delhi Police Force on October 29, 1947, and was promoted as Head Constable with effect from October 30, 1947. He was app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1981Delhi381; ILR1981Delhi661; 1981RLR354
S.B. Wad, J. (1) Petitioner was suspended from the rolls of the three-year Diploma Course in Pusa Polytechnic Institute, by the order of the Principal on 16'-10-80. By the me order, he was prohibited from entering the premises of the Polytechnic. He was also directed to vacate the hostel room occupied by him. This was a temporary order. It was to be in force till the criminal case against him was decided. In this Writ Petition., the petitioner has challenged this order. The petitioner (along with two other students), was involved in a stabbing incident in the Polytechnic on 15-11-1979. One Shri Ved parkash Pippal, a student of first year was stabbed. A criminal case u/s 307 I-P.C. is pending against these students. The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute, after due enquiry, had recommended expulsion of these students but the Principal did not impose the extreme penalty. (2) The Director of Technical Education, Delhi Administration, has framed rules regarding conduct, discipline and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT417; 1981RLR367
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) Main question involved in the present revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short code), which is directed against an order dated January 23, 1981 of Shri R. C. Chopra, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, is as to whether a temporary mandatory injunction can be issued as an ad interim measure during the pendency of the suit and if so under what circumstances (2) In Jangpura Extension Market, New Delhi, there is one block of building consisting of 10 shops on the ground floor and 10 flats on the first floor. There is one flat on every one of the shops. Flats are numbered as 1 to 10 and likewise shops are also numbered as 1 to 10. There is common stair case for approach to flats Nos. 1 and 2. There is another common stair case for approach to flats Nos. 5 & 6 and yet another one for approach to flat Nos. 7 and 8. There is no stair case for reaching flat Nos. 3 &4as well as flats Nos. 9 and 10. Flat No. 4 belongs to the plaintiff-respondent (herein...
Tag this Judgment!