Delhi Court January 1982 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.
Milvi Devi Vs. Dina Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT204
Sultan Singhi, J. (1) This second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 4th March, 1981 passing an order of eviction against the appellant under Section 14(1)(c)of the Act and giving him benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act. Briefly the facts are that the appellant has been a tenant in one room, one tin-shed, one kitchen, terrace, water tap (common) one Kolki (common), latrine (joint) on the first floor of premises No. 4490 situated at Gali Bhagat Singh Shaid, Paharganj, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 8.00 under the respondent. The respondent in 1970 filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the grounds mentioned in clauses (d) and (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. On 10th January, 1972 the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) but rejected the ground of eviction mentioned in Section 14(1)(d)....
Smt. Manju Gupta Vs. M.S. Paintal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: 1982RLR592
ORDER1. Smt. Manju Gupta, the petitioner herein, and her husband Surinder Nath, were summoned by Shri Om Parkash Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by the order dt. 23rd June, 1979, for an offence under Section 467/471 read with S. 34 of the Penal Code on a complaint filed by Lt. Col. M. S. Paintal. 2. At the outset it may be noted that the petitioner herein had challenged the said order by filing a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Delhi. The said petition was dismissed by Shri S. R. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 23rd January, 1981, on the ground that the petition was time-barred. The petition was filed on 17th September, 1980, i.e., after one year and three months of the passing of the impugned order. From the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that after conclusion of arguments an application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay in filing the revision petition. While rejectin...
Sunder Industries and ors. Vs. General Engineer Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi220; 21(1982)DLT53; 1982(3)DRJ130; 1982RLR133
(1) The verification on the affidavit in support of summons for judgment reads as undpr :- 'VERIFIEDat Delhi on this 5th day of August 1981 that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my best knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from'.(2) Similarly the verification on the affidavit in reply to the application for leave to defend reads as under :- 'VERIFIEDat Delhi on this 23rd day of September 1981 that the contents of all the aforesaid paras and sub-paras of my above affidavit are true and correct to my personal knowledge, knowledge from the records and the information received and the legal advice sought and believed to be true and correct and nothing has been concealed there from'.(3) Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, 'AFFIDAVITS shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted : provided that...
Manju Gupta Vs. M.S. Paintal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ817; 21(1982)DLT164
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) Smt. Manju Gupta, the Petitioner herein, and her husband Surinder Nath, were summoned by Shri 0m Parkash Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by his order dated 23rd June, 1979, for an offence under Sections 467/471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint filed by Lt. Col. M.S. Paintal. (2) At the outset it may be noted that the petitioner herein had challenged the said order by filing a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Delhi. The said petition was dissmissed by Shri S.R. Goel, Additional Seionsss Judge, vide his order dated 23rd January, 1981, on the ground that the petition was time barred. The petition was filed on 17th September, 1980 i.e., after one year and three months of the passing of the impugned order. From the judgmentof the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that after conclusion of arguments an application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay in filing the revi...
Union of India Vs. Nand Kishore and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi452; 21(1982)DLT214
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These arc eight appeals from the order of the Additional District Judge dated December 4, 1972. (2) The lands of the respondents-owners were acquired by the Government. Their lands were situated in Sadhora Khurd. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) was issued on November 13, 1959. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on July 19,1965. The Land Acquisition Collector made the award on August 11, 1967 (Award No. 1984). For the lands in question the Collector awarded Rs. 6,000.00 per bigha. On a reference to the Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the Act the compensation was raised from Rs. 6000.00 per bigha to Rs. 8500.00 per bigha. This, in his opinion, reflected a just and fair market value of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 16 and 17. (3) Aggrieved by this order, the Union of India brought appeals to this Court. R.N.Aggarwal,J.byorder dated July 10,1973 dismissed these appeals in liming by a short o...
Ratish Kumar Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1982
Reported in: 1982(3)DRJ142
(1) The property is a Dal Mill. This property was purchased in 1908 by one Shri Ram and two other persons Mohammad Ahmad and Savaid Hussain (hereafter referred to as 'the Muslim owner's). Shri Ram had 1/2 share in the said property. The Muslim owners had the other half. Shri Ram died leaving behind a son Balram. On Jan. 6, 1925, the property was petitioned between Balram and the Muslim owners. After partition, the Muslim owners, created a Wakf-ul-Aulad in respect of the portion of the property that fell to their share. A deed of Wakf dated 6/3/1925, was executed. It was registered on 7/3/1925. The founder appointed mutawallia in the Wakfnama. Under the deed there are a number of beneficiaries who are entitled to receive income from the Wakf property.(2) On the partition of the country in 1947, the mutawallis migrated to Pakistan. They became evacuees. The Wakf property under Section 11 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 ('the Act') vested in the Custodian. With the con...
Ram Swaroop Vs. Sujan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT192
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 10th November, 1980 passing an order of eviction in favor of Sujjan Singh, Landlord-respondent No. 1 and against Krishan Lal, tenant-respondent No. 2 and Ram Swaroop appellant. Briefly the facts are that the property situated at 48, Jangpura Road, Bhogal, New Delhi was initially owned by Rajendra Prasad, minor. He became owner by means of a sale deed registered on 24th July, 1951. He sold the property to Inderjit on 28th August, 1973 and Inderjit sold the same to Sujjan Singh, respondent No. I on 17th October, 1978 during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. On 27th March, 1974 Inderjit filed the eviction application against Krishan Lal, tenant and Ram Swaroop, appellant, under clauses (b), (c) & (d) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act alleging that Krishan Lal was a ...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Pratap Names Labels Factory
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT320; ILR1982Delhi683
Sultan Singh, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether 'Inam' paid by M/s. Pratap Name Lables Factory-respondent to his employees is wages within the meaning of 'The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and whether any contribution is payable on it by the employer. Briefly the facts are that the respondent firm a partnership concern is engaged in the manufacture of woven labels employing more than 20 persons registered under the Factories Act. The said Act is applicable to the factory of the respondent. The respondent started the factory in 1956. The normal average production of each workman employed by the respondent per eight hours a day is 51/2 metre woven labels. Since the year 1965 it was agreed between the workman and the respondent that each workman who gives production more than 51/2 metre in a day would be paid 'Inam' at the rate of 75 paise per metre. The 'Inam' was being accordingly paid by the respondent to his employees. The Emplo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›