Court : Delhi
Reported in : 22(1982)DLT443; 1982(3)DRJ402; 1982RLR699
Leila Seth, J.(1) This is petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, pending in the Court of Kumari L. Khiangte, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Patel Nagar, be quashed. (2) Petitioner No. I Maya Devi, is the owner of a house No. E-39, Kii Nagar, New Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 4, 0m Parkash Sikka and his wife respectively are the son and daughter-in-law of Maya Devi. Ramji Dass Kapur, Petitioner No. 3 is the attorney of Maya Devi. The respondent Bhagat Singh Bedi, is a tenant in a part of the abovementioned premises. (3) It is perhaps pertinent to place the background of this case, which is chequered. Maya Devi went abroad to live with her son, who was posted outside India. Some time in October, 1979 Maya Devi, through her attorney, Ramji Dass Kapur, let out a part of the said first floor premises to Mr P P. Talwar. The portion let out on the first floor consisted of three rooms) one ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1982Delhi472
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This will dispose of 155 cases bearing Nos. 895-A to 1049-A of 1981. They involve common questions of fact and law, and have been, thereforee, taken together. The State Trading Corporation of lndia is the objector in all these cases. The claimants are different sugar mills, spread all over India. Common arguments have been addressed.(2) The proceedings in these cases were initiated by the moving of an application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act by the Indian Council of Arbitration. It was mentioned that 155 sugar mills had moved the Council for Arbitration under a contract which provided for arbitration under the rules of arbitration of the Council. As such Mr. Justice V. Bhargava was appointed as sole-Arbitrator. He had given his awards numbering 155, and they were filed for being made the rule of the Court.(3) Notices of the filing of the awards were given to the parties. The State Trading Corporation has now filed objections under Section 33 read with S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982(3)DRJ696; 1982RLR696
Avadh Behari, J.(1) This petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code . is directed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated March 5, 1982 (2) These are the facts. The respondent Delhi Administration, tiled acomplaint under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (the Act). In the complaint it was alleged that the chocolate ice cream which the petitioner Subash Chander was vending was adulterated as well as misbranded as founded by the public analyst in his report dated 29th May, 1981. he accused Subhash Chander was summoned. He exercised his right under section 13(2) of the Act to have the sample sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The court received a certificate of the C.F.L. dated 16-1-1982. The certificate went in favor of the accused.(3) The public analyst had found that the ice cream was adulterated. He gave this opinion. 'The ice cream layer of the sample contains milk fat 9% 'against the minimum prescribed standard of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 22(1982)DLT337; 1982(2)SLJ294(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This petition is directed against the order of the removal of the petitioner from service passed on 7-4-1981 and the order dated 6-6-1981 rejecting his appeal. (2) From 1956 to 1977 the petitioner was working in the office of the Accountant General, Commerce, Works and Miscellaneous, Government of India. On 1st March, 1977 he joined the Trade Fair Authority of India (referred to in the judgment as an Authority) as an S.A.S. Accountant. On 14-7-1978 he was permanently absorbed in the service of the Authority 'in public interest'. When he was in the Central Government service he was the President of the Staff Association in the Accountant General's office. As an officer in the Authority he was elected as a General Secretary of the Officers' Association. At the relevant time he was working as a General Secretary of the said Association. On 17-2-1981 a departmental enquiry was started against him under Rules 27 and 28 under the Trade Fair Authority of India Employees (Condu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi78; 22(1982)DLT36; 1982(3)DRJ384; 1982RLR681
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The question for decision in this civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is : whether Gaon Sabha Khera Delhi through its Pradhan (respondent No. 9) should be imp leaded as a deantant the suit filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 1 to 8?(2) Briefly the facts arc that the petitioner/plaintiff on 24.1.1978 filed a suit against respondents No. 1 to 8 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his possession of the Gher in suit alleging that he and the defendants were members of the Proprietory body of the village Khera Kalan, Delhi, that a plot of land belonging to him in the abad' Deh of the said village decended to him from his ancestors and that the same was and is being used as a 'Gher' by his ancestors for storing their agricultural products and tethering of their catties, that the Gher was bound by a boundry wall of about 8 feet with a Gate which could be locked and that there has been a well at a distance of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 22(1982)DLT370
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is an appeal from the order of the Special Judge dated November 6, 1974 in a corruption case. (2) These are the facts. The appellant was a superintendent in the office of the Small Scale Industries Corporation (Corporation) at Okhla. He was charged on two counts : (1) for an offence under S. 161 I.P.G. (1) and (2) an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 15(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (the Act). The Special Judge found him guilty on both counts and sentenced him to 1' years on each count, both sentence, to run concurrently. He was also sentenced under Section 5(2) of the Act to a fine of Rs. 300.00 in default of which he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. (3) The main case set up by the prosecution was as follows. The complainant Ranbir Sehgal complained to the office of anti-corruption on May 3, 1971 that the appellant had visited his cycle parts shop at Esplanade Road on April 29, 1971 and had demanded a bribe o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1982Delhi513
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This case is a good example of law's delay. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed on 13th January, 1969 by Smt. Tej Kaur. She imp leaded the following respondents to the petition : (1) Appellate Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951; (2) Competent Officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (U.P.); (3) Custodian of Evacuee Property for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (U.P.); (4) Sulakhan Singh. On behalf of respondents I to 3 a reply was received from the Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 21st March, 1969 that the department was not interested in contesting the case. So no one appeared on their behalf at the hearing. Sulakhan Singh was served. He appointed a counsel. The case was heard by Sachar, J. on September 18, 1978. At the hearing no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. Even counsel of Sulakhan Singh did not appear. The le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi65; 22(1982)DLT315
Sultan Singh, J. (1) Whether Mst. Insha Allah alias Noor Jehan plaintiff /decree-holder/respondent No. 1 is entitled to actual possession of the immovable property allotted to her in the partition decree is the question for decision in this revision petition. (2) Briefly the relevant facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and mesne profits with respect to properties detailed in Annexure 'A' to the plaint against her step mother (Mst. Munawar Jehan defendant No. 1), two step sisters (Mst. Mumtaz Jehan and Mst. Altaf Jehan, defendants No. 2 & 3) and uncle (Abdul Hamid-defendant No. 4). She claimed 16172 share of the entire property. A preliminary decree for partition and rendition of accounts was passed. The plaintiff's share was held to be 16172. The local commissioner suggested vertical partition of the immovable property bearing Municipal No. 2086 Ward No. Xi Gali Nahar Khan, Kucha Chelan, Daryaganj, Delhi by a line shown as P to P-1 in the plan Ex. C.W.I 14. The port...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1984]55CompCas81(Delhi); 1982CriLJ2230; ILR1983Delhi419
M.L. Jain, J. (1) This reference has arisen 1n the following circumtances: Cr. R. 259/1981 : In re The Oriental Bank of Commerce.(2) On 29/12/1980 the Junior Engineer of the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A. for short) inspected the premises No. D-985, New Friends Colony, in development Zone No. I, which is a residential area and found that in the said premises the Oriental Bank of Commerce is running its Staff Training College-cum-Hostel. Upon a report being made, the Assistant Engineer (Prosecution) issued notices to the said Bank and its Chairman on 8/1/1981 asking them to show cause within 15 days why action should not be taken against them under section 14 read with section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (in brief 'the Act'). The Principal of the College and the Joint General Manager of the Bank in separate replies of 24/1/1981 stated that the premises were in most part being used as residential and requested for permission to continue to do so and for withdrawal of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982(3)DRJ381; 1982RLR692
Sultan Singh, J.(1) Plot No. 27, Road No. 34 Ward No. 16, Pusa Road, New Delhi was leased by the Delhi Improvement Trust with effect from 1-4-41 for a period of 90 years in terms of the Lease Deed dated 30-1-42 to Rai Sahib Dhanpat Rai. It appeals that Dhanpat Rai assigned his rights in the said plot to Ishwar Singh who farther assigned his rights to Mohd. Sultan and Slah Uddin. This happened prior to the partition of India in 1947. On account of disturbance at the time of partition of the country Mohd. Sultan and Uddin migrated to Pakistan and their lease hold rights in the suit plot became evacuee property and vested in the Custodian of evacuee property. The evacuee property under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehablitation) Act 1954 was acquired by the Central Government for rehablitation of displaced persons. The plot in question Was valued by the authorities under the said Act some times in 1956. It was auctioned for Rs. 1,40,150.00 on 18-9-60. Shri Krishan...
Tag this Judgment!