Delhi Court May 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.
R.L. Sapra Vs. Om Perkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1981
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT8b; 1981RLR601
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code . is directed against order dt. 6.12.79 of S.S.J., Delhi confirming order dt. 29.10.79 of Sub-Judge 1st class, Delhi refusing to grant temporary injunction restraining Deft. from dispossessing and removing power & telephone connection fitted on 1st floor of A-81/2 Wazirpur Ind. Area, Delhi. (2) The petitioner and the respondent by a deed dated June 18, 1977 entered into partnership to carry on business under the name and style of 'Mystika Industrial Electroplaters' at A-81/2, Wazir Pur Industrial Area, Delhi. The investment and machinery was to be provided by the petitioner. The respondent was to provide only the said premises. The profits were to be divided in the ratio of 85% and 15% between the petitioner and the respondent ; the losses were agreed to be born by the petitioner. The petitioner alone was responsible for running the day to day business of the partnership. The respondent did not have any right to receive or...
Deep Chand Vs. Jhandoo Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi24; 20(1981)DLT149; 1981(2)DRJ215; 1981RLR76
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside and quashing the order dated September 19, 1980 of the Third Additional Controller in the eviction case Jhandoo Singh v. Deep c hand. It has arisen in the following circumstances. (2) On January 8, 1973 Jhandoo Singh, respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent, he having failed to pay rent for the period from September 30, 1969 at Rs. 30.00 per month, in spite of the service of a notice of demand under Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioner in his written statement pleaded that he was not a tenant under him. The Additional Controller by order dated December 15, 1975 held that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He directed the petitioner to deposit rent for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the eviction applicat...
Banwari Lal and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi366; 20(1981)DLT225; 1982(3)DRJ12; ILR1982Delhi640
Avadh Behari Rohatagi, J. (1) These appeals raise once again the question, which has been so often discussed and decided, namely, what is the meaning of the term 'judgment' as used in the Letters Patent. Ever since the Queen established the chartered High Courts in the three Presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in 1865 this single term has vexed the judges for these hundred years and more. Sir Richard Couch Cj of Calcutta and Sir Arnold White Cj of Madras are some of the illustrious names of judges who initiated the great debate. (2) These are two letters patent appeals from the order of a learned single judge dated January 30, 1973. (3) These are the facts. By an order of the Central Government dated August 27, 1942, building known as I, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, of the owners, M/s. Banwari Lal & Sons (P) Ltd., was requisitioned under 75-A of the defense of India Rules, 1939. Possession of the property was taken by the Central Government on September 15, 1942. After twenty...
Suhagwati Vs. Delhi Transport Undertaking (Now D.T.C )
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-1981
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC279
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal by the heirs of deceased Roshan Lal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Petition. Roshan Lal was killed in a road accident caused by the D.T.U. (now D.T.C.) bus No. DLP 817 on 25th July, 1966. The accident took place at Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg opposite to the Casualty Ward of Irwin Hospital Delhi. Deceased Roshan Lal was working as a Senior Laboratory Technician in Irwin Hospital and was residing in Quarter No. 17 of the Irwin Hospital, Delhi. Around 9.45 p.m. he along with Jaswant Singh was going from the side of the gate of Casualty Ward of the Irwin Hospital towards Asaf Ali Road. According to the claimants the said bus came in speed and hit Roshan Lal from the left side of the bus Roshan Lal was rushed to the Irwin Hospital where he was operated upon but he died the next day. The version of the respondent D.T.C. was that the bus was coming at a slow speed but the deceased came from Irwin Hospital side running ahead of the bus. took a sudd...
inder SaIn and Another Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1116
ORDER1. The present petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners and three others under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Dowry Act) in the Court of Shri O. P. Dewedi, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 2. The aforesaid proceedings were started on a report having been filed by the police on August 20, 1979. The police was set in motion on account of complaint dated March 13, 1979 of Smt. Meera (hereinafter referred to as Complainant) daughter of Shri R. N. Sahni resident of House No. 29/27 Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi addressed to Commissioner of Police. The allegations made in the complaint were briefly as follows : Inder Sen, petitioner was on intimate friendly terms with the father, of the complainant. Inder Sen and his wife Smt. Champa Devi, who both are petitioners used to visit the house of the father of complainant. Friendship between Inder Sen petitioner...
Yed Perkash Gulati Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1981
Reported in: 1983CriLJ3589; 1983RLR537
Aggarwal, J. (1) Rule D.B. The petitioner Ved Perkash Gulati by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleges violation of his fundamental rights of freedom and privacy by the action of respondent No. 2 in bringing his name on surveillance register and further by opening his history sheet. The petitioner alleges that for various reasons, the details of which are given in the petition, the respondents had adopted against him a vindictive and hostile attitude. (2) The respondents in reply have denied that the petitioner has been brought on the surveillance register. However, it has not been disputed that an order for maintaining the history sheet of the petitioner has been made. The respondents in annexure R-l to the reply have given the details of the criminal cases in which -the petitioner is alleged to be involved. The details of the cases are as follows :(...) (3) The relevant police rule is 23.9 (2). Under the said rule a history sheet may be opened by or unde...
N.D. Khanna Vs. Hindustan Industrial Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi305; 1981(2)DRJ241
(1) Order 7 Rule (1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Code is mandatory. The cause of action has to be disclosed in the plaint and not in replication because there is no opportunity to the opposite party to rebut the same. However, the petition should have been rejected and not dismissed and the petitioner would be entitled to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action....
Poona Bottling Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1981
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC306; 1981(8)ELT389(Del); ILR1981Delhi406
G.C. Jain, J.1. The Judgment will also dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 387/80 (M/s. Indore Bottling Co. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.), 6 of 1979 (M/s. Tripty Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Jagatpur, Cuttack vs. Union of India & Ors.) 82 of 1979 (Varanasi Bottling Co. Dharia, Varanasi vs. Union of India & Ors.) 83 of 1979 (Varanasi Bottling Co. Dharia, Varanasi vs. Union of India & Ors.) 195/80 (M/s. Amritsar Bottling Co., Amritsar vs. Union of India & Ors.) 197 of 1980 (M/s. Chandigarh Bottling Co., Chandigarh vs. Union of India & Ors.) and 565 of 1980 (Agra Beverages Corporation Ltd. Delhi and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.) as the questions of law and facts involved are common in all these cases. We will notice the facts of the present case C.W. 916/78 and need not give the facts of the other petitions because the facts are almost similar.2. M/s. Poona Bottling Co. Ltd., Petitioner No. 1 in this petition (C.W. 916 of 1978) is a public limited company carrying on, inter alia, the busines...
B.B. Alu Co. Vs. Sunderlal and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi279; 1981RLR686
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) DEFTS. obtained a contract for the supply of fresh potatoes to Army and they entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs that the latter should make supplies on their behalf and would be entitled to collect 90% of the value of supplies made and that the balance 10% would be collected by Defts. who would deduct their commission and expenses and pay rest to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleging, that they were made certain payments, sued Defts. for accounts on the plea that same were known to and maintained by the Defts Defts. raised a preliminary objection that suit for accounts did not lie]. After detailing above, order proceeds. (2) There is no doubt and it was also common ground between the parties at the time of arguments that for the purpose of deciding maintainability of a suit only the allegations contained in the plaint are to be taken as correct. Of course, it would be different when the suit proceeds do merits. thereforee, for the purpose of deciding this issue...
S. Kumar Vs. Additional Director of Enforcement and Foreign Exchange R ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT294
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) This is an appeal moved under section 54 of he Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, xvii of 1973 against an order dated 26.7.1979 of Shri V.V. Vaze, Member, Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. (2) The background of the facts is that Pearl Cycle Industries Ltd., obtained two import licenses for the import of cycle chain plant of the value of Rs. 7,00,000.00 equivalent to about Deutsche Marks 605227. This was said to be the outer limit of the imports. However, the actual total price of the equipment came to Dm 5,20,280. The Technical Manager of the company then wrote to the supplier in Germany, asking for modifications in the proforma invoice in order to make up the amount of Rs. 7,00,000. Having obtained that, the equipment worth Rs. 7,00,000.00 was thus stated to have been imported by this process. It was alleged that the company indulged in over-invoicing of the bills and in this way contravened section 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. (3) Pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »