Delhi Court November 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.
Radha Mohan and anr. Vs. Radha Fancy Stores and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT269
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The plaintiffs have brought a suit for recovery of Rs. l,12,800.00 along with pendente lite and future interest @ l2/o p.a. (2) The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were partners and were carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Radha Fancy Store, defendant No. I in shop Nos. 67-68, outside Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The plaintiffs retired from that partnership in consideration of payment of a sum of Rs. l,00,000.00 in the following manner :- Rs. 40.000.00 by cheque dated October 10, 1980 in favor of plaintiff No. 1. Rs. 10,000.00 by cheque dated October 10, 1980 in favor of plaintiff No. 2. Rs. 50,COO.00 to be paid to plaintiff No. I after one year of October 10, 1980. Rs. 50,000.00 to be paid to plaintiff No. 2 within one year of October 10, 1980. (3) In respect of the aforesaid transaction, a deed of release dated October 10, 1980 was executed between the parties. In that deed, there was an incorporation of promise of the defendant Nos. 2...
Jagmohan Verma Vs. Sunita Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ144; 1983RLR140
Sultan Singh, J.(1) -THIS Civil Revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the judgment and order dated 15th May, 1982 of the Additional District Judge Delhi directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 700.00 as litigation expenses and Rs. 400.00 per month as pendentelite maintenance with effect from 16th March, 1982 to the respondent.(2) SMT.SUNITA Jagmohan Verma, the respondent on 20th February, 1982 filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the petitioner. She alleges that a marriage was solemnised between the parties on 19th March, 1978 at Pune. She filed her affidavit dated 20th February, 1982 in support of the said marriage. She further pleads that both the parties on 22nd March, 1978 left for Kashmir for haney-moon, cohabited and consummated the marriage, that after return they lived together and cohabited at Bombay for some time and after exhausting his leave the petitioner returned to Coch...
S.S. Sandhu Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1982
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ40; 1983RLR313; 1983(1)SLJ475(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) We had allowed this petition per short order dated 20th August, 1982, as the matter was an urgent one. We had stated in that order that we would give our reasons later.(2) The petitioner is an Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force. He had joined this service as a Sub-Inspector on 1st August, 1956. Earlier he had been in the Indian Navy as a young boy.(3) He joined the Indian Navy in November, 1942 when he was about 14 years old and was a school student. He left the Navy in 1946 and resumed his studies. In consequence of his war service, he was deemed to have passed the metriculation. He graduated in 1951, and joined the Central Reserve Police Force in 1956. Thus, there was a ten year gap between his release from the Navy and his joining the Police.(4) The petitioner's metriculation Certificate gave his date of birth as 20th April, 1928, according to him his Service Book in the Reserve Police also recorded his date of birth as 20th April, 1928, and h...
Union of India Vs. Siri Ram and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT288; 1983(4)DRJ129; 1983RLR45
D.R. Khanna, J. (1) -THESE three cases relate to two awards delivered by Miss K.P. Sarojini, Arbitrator, of the date 3-5-1979 on disputes and differences inter se parties arising under agreement No. 4/EE/74. The contract was for construction of residential accommodation at Hauz Khas of 32 type I quarters phase II. The necessity for giving two awards arose as the disputes were referred to arbitration at different stages.(2) Objections have been filed to the awardby the Union of India, and those agitated at the time of arguments, relate to the non-allowance of its claim of Rs. 19,727.96 p. which had been deducted by the Union of India from the bills of the contractor for delayed execution of the work, and the awarding of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount allowed to the contractor. (3) There is no dispute that the stipulated date for the completion of work was 15-5-1974. However, extensions were granted from time to time, and ultimately they were up to 10-9-1975 by which ...
Shanti Lal Mehta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi374
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Shanti Lal Mehta, petitioner, who carries on business at Calcutta under the name and style of Mjs. Chotalal Amulekh & Mohanlal as sole proprietor thereof. The petition is directed against the respondents, namely, the Union of India, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and the Additional Collector of Customs. The facts : (2) These are the facts. On 15-2-1967 the petitioner's premises at Calcutta were searched by the custom authorities. Certain items of ornaments and diamonds were seized. A list of the seized articles was prepared. In his Explanationn the petitioner told the customs authorities that the articles seized from him were not smuggled goods, as was believed by the customs, but were the property of the queen mother of Nepal who had given them to him for repair, remaking and polishing etc. On this Explanationn the Additional Collector of Customs wrote a letter to Counsel Genera...
Charanjit Singh Vs. Arun Purie and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1982
Reported in: 1983(4)DRJ86; 1983RLR48
Soltan Singh, J. (1) In a suit for perpetual injunction filed on the 5th February, 1982 for restraining the defendants-respondent? from printing and publishing the threatened article and further restraining them from circulating for sale or otherwise the Magazine 'India Today' containing the said article regarding the plaintiff, an application for temporary injunction under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was allowed by the trial Court but on appeal it was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, this revision. ......under Section 115 of the Code.(2) The plaintiff-petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of India, that he is the Managing Director of Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd., that he was elected in 1980 as Member of Parliament and has very high status, associated with social, political, cultural and financial institutions, that defendant- respondent No. 7 'India Today' is a magazine of which defendant-respondent No. ...
Mewa Devi and ors. Vs. Sri Kishan Das and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi176; 23(1983)DLT148; 1983(4)DRJ161; 1983RLR73
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) The question involved in the appeal relates to the wires of Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act amended vis-a-vis Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as by this definition of the expression 'tenant' the tenancy in relation to premises let for residential purposes is heritable to a limited extent whereas the tenancy in relation to premises not let for residential purposes is not so. This definition in Section 2(1) has been introduced with retrospective effect.(2) The question has arisen in view of the order of reference dated 5th March, 1981 passed by Wad, J. while hearing Regular First Appeal No. 521/ 69. Regular First Appeal No. 211 of 1981 is also placed before the Full Bench in view of the order of Goswamy, J. dated 30th November, 1981 directing this appeal to be heard along with RFA. No. 521/69.(3) For understanding the controversy, we are giving salient facts of Rfa No. 521/69.(4) The plaintiffs/respondents had filed the Suit for possessi...
Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Sri Kishan Dass and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-05-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi1a
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Dayal J., and I fully concur with the answers to the questions referred to the Full Bench which have been proposed by him. (2) The reference to the Full Bench is really the result, or consequence of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and others V. Parashram and others, : AIR1976SC2229 . However, the amendment in the definition of 'tenant' which was introduced by the Delhi Rent Control Amendment Act No. 18 of 1976, was apparently based on the previously existing view regarding the nature of protection given to a tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. At that time, the view was that a D tenant whose tenancy had expired and who had been given a notice to quit had only a personal right under the Act which came to an end on his death. Such a tenant, whose tenancy had expired, but who was protected from eviction by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was considered to be a merely 'statutory' tenant with ...
Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-04-1982
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT278; 1983(4)DRJ118; 1983RLR519
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) On a petition moved under section 14 of the Arbitration Act by M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Dr. Bakshish Singh, Additional Adviser, Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, who acted as sole arbitrator inter-se parties with respect to their disputes arising under A/T No. SV-7/101 77/168/3-6-69/1/783 dated 15-1-1970, filled his award dated 30-12-1978 in Court. Notices of this filing were issused to the parties. The Ashok Leyland then filed objections against the award which were controverter by the Union of India. They resulted in framing of the following issues:- 1.'Whether the award is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the objection petition 2. Relief.'(2) A perusal of the award shows that it Is a non-speaking one and the claim of the Ashok Leyland Ltd. is alowed for Rs. l,79,666.00 . No reasons are given, nor any evidence discussed for arriving at this conclusion. The award also does not make reference to any document or make that...
Harprashad and Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudarshan Steel Rolling Mills and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1980Delhi174b
Kirpal, J. 1. This appeal arises from the order passed on an application under O. 39, rr. 4 and 5, CPC, moved by the appellant wherein it had sought permission to invoke the bank guarantee which had been furnished by the respondent. 2. It appears that the appellant was trying to negotiate with the Iranian State Railways for the supply of certain goods. In order to be able to negotiate the proposed contract, the appellant, it seems, approached the respondents in order to ascertain for itself as to whether it would be in a position to make the supplies. 3. Some understanding between the parties was apparently arrived at. This is reflected in a bank guarantee dated July 14, 1976, in favor of the appellant by the Punjab National Bank, Shahdara, Delhi, which had been furnished at the instance of the respondent. The relevant portions of the bank guarantee, with which we are concerned in the present case, read as under : 'With reference to contract made between Iranian State Railways and M/s....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »