Delhi Court July 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.
Union of India and anr. Vs. Usha Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT407; 1981RLR668
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The respondent-company is a subscriber with regard to telephone connection No. 619880 which was installed at D-l, Lajpat Nagar, Part Iii, New Delhi, on 16th June, 1979. A consolidated bill for Rs. 1.679/ 98 P. inclusive of rental, phonogram and trunk call charges for the period 16th June, 1979 to 20th November, 1979, was raised by the Telephone Department of the appellant against the respondent-company. However, for the subsequent period 21st November, 1979 to 20th February, 1980, the telephone bill escalated to Rs. 15,146/35P., the meter reading showing as many as 37,504 local calls. The respondent-company made a representation to the Telephone Department with regard to the exorbitant number of calls registered on their aforesaid telephone, inter alia, urging that the steep rise in the number of calls was attributable to misuse of the telephone lines by the Line and other staff of the Telephone Department. However, this assertion of the respondent-company appears to h...
Manphul Singh Sharma Vs. Ahmedi Begum and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi87; 20(1981)DLT364; 1981(2)DRJ262; ILR1982Delhi253
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Smt Ahmedi Begum is the owner of the property known as 'Dharampur Lodge' situated near Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar in terms of the registered lease deed executed on 12th April, 1948 was inducted as a tenant in the said property for five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000.00 . On 3rd April, 1953 another lease deed was executed between the aforesaid parties for a further period of five years. The tenant was in arrears of rent and he failed to pay the same in spite of a notice of demand dated 3rd June, 1957. His tenancy was also terminated by the said notice. (2) On 28th August, 1957 Smt. Ahmedi Begum filed a suit for eviction and recovery against the said tenant. On 31st August, 1959 the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi passed a decree for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 32.554/4.00 . The decree-holder took out execution in the court of the Subordinate Judge which was transferred to this court under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966....
Jhabbu Mal Jang Bahadur Vs. Nanak Chand Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1991Delhi55; 20(1981)DLT210
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The respondent Nanak Chand Aggarwal of M/s. Chet. Ram Nanak Chand of Delhi purchased cloth from the petitioner Jhabbualmal Jang Bahadur, Cloth Commission Agent in the year 1974-1979. The petitioner are members of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. One of the conditions of the membership of said Association is that if any dispute arises between the parties relating to their dealings, it has to be decided by the said Association. This condition was also incorporated in the bills of M/s. Jhabbumal Jang Bahadur. It appears that the bills remained unpaid. The parties settled the accounts on 21.1.1979 and a balance of Rs. 4.900.00 was found due to the petitioner by the respondent. That document Ex. P-3 by which Nanak Chand promised that he will square up the entire account by making easy payments. He further agreed that if there was any misunderstanding or difference about the accounts, then it will be referred for arbitration to the said Association or to an arbitrato...
J.K. Singh Vs. the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1981
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ32
(1) The police submitted a challan in the Court of the Special Judge against Shri G. S. Jain (now dead). Manager, State Bank of India, New Delhi and five other persons belonging to some private concerns under sections 120-B and 109 read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code . and read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. G. S. Jain was separately also charged with Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (the Act). Shri G.S. Jain challenged before the Special Judge that sanction for his prosecution was bad in law. Before the matter could be decided G. S. Jain died. The Special Judge held that the sanction for the prosecution was defective because it was accorded by the Chief General Manager while he was appointed by the Executive Committee of the Bank and could not thereforee be removed by an authority subordinate to the said committee. It was then argued before the Special Judge that being so, no cognizance could be taken against G. S. Jain...
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Mukhtiar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT367; ILR1982Delhi246
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This appeal, under clause 10 of the LettersPatent, is directed against the judgment, dated 8/02/1972of a learned Single Judge of this Court.(2) Mukhtiar Singh, respondent in this appeal, joined serviceas lower division clerk with the Municipal Committee of Delhion 9/01/1950. On the establishment of Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), he became an employee of the Corporation by virtue of the provisions containedin section 511 of the Act. He was promoted as upper divisionclerk under orders dated 9/01/1959 (dopy annexure 'X')issued by Shri Manohar Lal, Assistant Commissioner (Establishment) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Disciplinaryproceedings were initiated against the respondent He was served with two separate charge-sheets (copies Annexure 'A' and'M'). He denied the charges. Inquiries were held in both thecases. The Enquiry Officer, vide his separate reports, held thatthe charges...
Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: 21(1981)DLT34; 1982LabIC594; (1982)IILLJ174Del; 1982(2)SLJ489(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Superintendent of Police, Delhi, holding that his period of suspension was not a period spent on duty. This order was passed on 28-10-1970 under the purported exercise of the power under F.R. 54(3). The petition is also directed against the orders of the D.I.G. and the I.G. rejecting his representation against the order of Superintendent of Police. The petitioner claims that as he was acquitted in a criminal case, (which necessitated his suspension), and, thereforee, the period of suspension should be treated as one spent on duty. He further claims that he is entitled to full pay and allowances and the other service benefits accruing to him during the said period 'and thereafter. (2) At the relevant time the petitioner was working as a Constable in Delhi Police, Delhi. A criminal case was filed against him for his allegedly committing an offence under Section 294, Indian Penal Code . He was put under suspension with effect ...
V.V. Nagarkar Vs. M.R. Dhawan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT203; 1982(3)DRJ38; 1981RLR506
(1) On 4-6-80 Shri M. R. Dhawan one of the accused in R. C. 8/77 filed a criminal complaint against several persons including the petitioner herein, who is public servant for offences u/s 166/167/218/500/343 and 120B J.P.C. read with Sections 166/167/218/500/343 Indian Penal Code A question arose before the learned Magistrate whether any sanction for the prosecution was or was not necessary under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code . before the court could proceed. The learned Magistrate after discussing the evidence concluded by his order of September 9, 1980 that prima facie there are grounds for summoning the accused and it appears from his order that he did not consider that any sanction for the prosecution was necessary. He issued process against all the accused under different sections. The petitioner however was summoned u/s 120B, 166, 157, 218, 343 and 500 Indian Penal Code The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. It was mainly contended that the prosecution was ...
Jatinder Nagrath Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT234
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This is an application by the petitioner who is standing trial for an offence under Section 302 I.P.G. in the Court of Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner has made several allegations, some of which are personal against the Presiding Officer, who happens to be permanent resident of Banarasi Dass Estate. The incident in question took place in the same area at some distance from the residence of Shri S.M. Aggarwal. All these allegations have been vehemently denied by Shri Aggarwal and in fairness to him Mr. K.K. Sud, counsel for the petitioner, has withdrawn them as ground for transfer. His only submission, however, is that Shri Aggarwal, being a permanent resident of that locality, the misgiving of the petitioner that he might be influenced by some extra judicial information, although stoutly refuted by Shri Aggarwal, cannot be said to be night marish. It will be conducive to the broader interest of judicial administration that a judicial offi...
Arjan Lal Verma and anr. Vs. Rawel Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi148; 20(1981)DLT361; 1981RLR593
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) A suit was instituted in the court below under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, as amended in 1976. On 23rd April 1980 the summons was tendered to the defendant, but according to the report of the process server the defendant refused to accept it. Thereafter, an affidavit of service was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The judge treated the refusal by the defendant as good service, and on 6th October 1980 passed an order saying: 'No appearance has been filed within the statutory period of ten days and hence the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment forthwith'. A d(cree was accordingly granted to the plaintiff. The defendant has filed this pention for revising that order. (2) It now transpires) and is not disputed, that counsel for the defendant had, in fact, filed a power of attorney in court on 30th April 1980, which was well within the prescribed ten days. But this fact was not brought to the notice of the judge, and neither the plaintiff nor his counsel...
Anil Gupta Vs. Atul Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT497
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) A family firm M/s Deoki Nandan and Sons carries on business at Delhi. The firm consists of lour partners. They are three brothers find a widow of a deceased brother. These are Atul Kumar Gupta, Anil Kumar Gupta, Sushil Kumar Gupta and Mrs. Sudha Gupta, wife of late Krishan Kumar Gupta. Of this partnership Atui Kumar Gupta is the managing[ partner. This firm has a large holding of shares in a company called Iron Traders Private Limited. The firm, its partners and other members of the family of 'the partners own shares in Iron Traders Private Limited. They have the controlling interest in the Company. Anil Kumar Gupta is the managing director to the company. Disputes arose amongst the partners of the firm regarding the control of the company M/s. Iron Tiaders Private Limited. There is a clause of arbitration in the partnership deed of the firm. In terms of the arbitration clause the partners agreed to refer their disputes on March 10,1980 to Justice S.N. Andle...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »