Delhi Court April 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Uma Sehgal and ors. Vs. Dwarka Dass Sehgal and ors. Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi36; [1983]54CompCas842(Delhi); 20(1981)DLT165; ILR1981Delhi315; 1981RLR543
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Suadrshan Kumar Sehgal took out three policies of insurance on his life, two in 1958 and one in 1959 in which he nominated his father Dwarka Dass Sehgal under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (herein called 'the Act'). He was married in 1964. He took out the fourth policy in 1966 but this time he nominated his wife, Mrs. Uma Sehgal. He died in 1968 leaving his heirs Mrs. Uma Sehgal, his minor son Sunil and his mother Mrs. Vidya Wati Sehgal. The money of the last policy was received by the widow. She filed on January 2. 1970 a suit on behalf of herself and her minor son to recover 213th share in the amount of the first three policies against Dwarka Dass Sehgal, his wife Vidya Wati and the Life Insurance Corporation. The amount appears to have been paid by the said Corporation on January 10, 1970 to the nominee. Dwarka Dass Sehgal contends that he was entitled to receive the policy money absolutely on the grounds- (A)that he had paid the premiums, (B)that he was th...
Jagan Nath Phool Chand Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi93; 20(1981)DLT280; 1982(3)DRJ51; 1982RLR174
(1) The appellant firm entered into a contract with the respondent Union of India (Northern Railway) for execution of 'earth work in left guide bond and approach bank of 2nd Yamuna Bridge. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the petitioner/appellant called upon the respondent No. 2 to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the General Conditions vide letter dated 27-4-66. Since the respondent took up the stand that most of the matters in dispute fell within the ambit of term 'excepted matters' as described in clause 63, the same could not be referred to the arbitration. Under the circumstances the appellant/petitioner moved an application u/s 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act (called the Act) with the prayer that the arbitration agreement be directed to file in the court and the disputes between the parties be referred to the arbitrator. The learned Single Judge who heard the petition u/s 20 of the Act held that only a couple of disputes between the parties were referable to arbitr...
Onkar Singh Vs. Shanti Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT463; 1981RLR413
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) In this petition under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act the challenge is to the order of eviction dated 7th February, 1979 passed by Shri J.M. Malik, 5th Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. (2) The petitioner is a tenant of a portion of the premises No. B-3/12, , Model Town, Delhi. The respondent-landlady filed an application for eviction of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that she required the premises bona fide for her occupation and for the occupation of members of the family dependent upon her. (3) The aforesaid order is being challenged in this revision petition. It is contended by Shri Sabharwal that it was incumbent upon the Additional Rent Controller to decide as to whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay or not. In the grounds of revision it had been contended that it was not necessary that an application for leave to contest should be filed within 15 days and that it was sufficient if the appearance was put in withi...
Electronics Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT496(Del)
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the notice of demand dated August 25, 1967 issued by the Inspector, Central Excise, the orders of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, dated May 6, 1968 and June 19, 1968 confirming the notice of demand and rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of excise duty, the orders of the Collector of Central Excise dated July 9, 1968 and October 3, 1968 rejecting the appeals of the petitioner and the order of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue & Insurance), New Delhi dated April 2/6, 1970 rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner. The dispute has arisen on these facts.2. The petitioner is the manufacturer of Air-conditioners and holds a license issued under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for the ma...
Natwar Lal Shamal Das and Co. Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi44; 1982(3)DRJ23
(1) The respondent (corporation) entered into five contracts with the claimants M/s Natwar Lal Shamal Dass and Co. (claimants). The case of the claimants was that the corporation failed to take delivery of managese are within the original delivery period or the extended period. They alleged that they sustained loss and damages and were entitled to reimbursement. Dispute arose between the parties. There was an arbitration clause in the purchase contracts. The claimants made applications to this court under Section 20 of the Act in 1975, and asked for a reference of the disputes and the differences between the parties to an arbitrator to be appointed by the court. A learned Single Judge of this court referred the disputes to the sole arbitrator Sh. Chopra. The arbitrator gave five awards who sent those awards to this court. The respondents have filed objections under section 30/33 of the Act for setting aside those awards. It was contended that (1) these awards were based no evidence (2)...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asia Udyog (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas187(Delhi); [1984]145ITR520(Delhi)
Sachar, J. (1) The question referred to the Full Bench is whether before initiating proceedings under Section 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1,971 (hereinafter to be called the 1971 Act) the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as LIC) is required under law to seek leave of the winding up Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act 1956 (2) Winding up proceedings were started against M/s. Asia Udyog (P) Ltd. It is common case that an order for wading up had been passed on 2-2-1978 and the winding up proceedings are pending in this court. The company was admittedly a tenant of the premises at 8, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The said premises also admittedly belong to LIC. 1971 Act defines 'Public Premises' and it is common case of the parties that the premises in dispute are covered by the definition of Section 2(c) of 1971 Act. (3) 'THE case of the Lic is that because of the various unlawful acts done by the company its possession was unau...
Hari Shanker Gaur Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT59
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) This petition is directed against an order dated 6.3. 1981 of Shri O.P.Divedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, whereby Charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . was framed against Hari Shankar Gaur, petitioner. It was observed that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against him as the material on record, prima facie, indicated his complicity in the alleged offence, and there was no sufficient ground to discharge him at that stage. (2) According to the petitioner, he and Abha were married on 10.5.1978, and a daughter was born out of the wedlock in March 1979, On the morning of 2.10.79, Abha along with her daughter was inside a room with its door bolted from inside. The baby, however, was crying, and as the knocking at the door did not invite any response from Abha, it was pushed open resulting in the belt dislodging. Abha was then found lying unconscious. A doctor was called and she was taken to J.P.Hospital where she was declared dead. (3) Her post-m...
Suresh Kanta Vs. Prem NaraIn Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT107
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal on behalf of the wife under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated November 30, 1979 for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the respondent husband. The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites at Delhi on May 6, 1968. The appellant was employed as a teacher while the respondent was employed as Junior Engineer in Central Public works Department at Delhi on a transferable post. The respondent alleges that at time of marriage it was agreed that the appellant would leave her job and join him in case of his transfer out side Delhi. After the solemnisation of the marriage parties lived at houses bearing municipal number 1439/1452, Gali Murli Ban Wali, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Delhi and they went to Nanital for sometime. Sometime in July 1968 the appellant started insisting upon the respondent to live separately fro...
Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Mohd. Arafin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT12; 1981(2)DRJ226
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal by the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated September 22, 1978 of the Rent Control Tribunal whereby an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act was passed against the appellant. (2) The respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on various grounds. His application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller by order dated September 19, 1975. On appeal however as already stated order of eviction was passed only under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It is not disputed that the respondent is the owner of the suit premises and that the same were let out to the appellant for residential purposes. The only disputes are whether the respondent bona fide requires the suit premises and whether he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The Tribunal has held t...
Om Singh and Vs. Gaon Sabha and Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ940; 20(1981)DLT23
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present petition under Section 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as New Code) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated June 4, 1980 of shri R. D. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi setting aside, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, an order of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and directing the petitioner to hand over possession of land measuring 1 bigha and 10 bids was comprised in field No. 428/309 in the Revenue Estate of Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. (2) S.H.O. Shahdara, made a report dated September 2. 1973 to the effect that a dispute existed in respect of the aforesaid land. which was likely to cause breach of peace between Om Singh and Fateh Singh on one hand, and Kewal Singh, Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Babarpur and Narsingh Dass on the other hand. Shri S. P. Prabhakar, the then S.D.M. Shahdara passed a preliminary order 'dated September, 1973 under Section 145 of the Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›